alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
    CERTIFICATION
    I, Raj-Mohinder Gurm, certify that:
1)	I have reviewed this annual report on form 10-KSB of Natco
International Inc.
2)	Based on my knowledge, this Annual report does not contain any untrue
statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this annual report;
3)	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
annual report;
4)	The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the small business issuer and have:
a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;
b)	[Omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-
47986];
c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; and
d)	Disclosed in this report any change in small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small
business issuer's forth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involve management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2008                          /S/   Raj-Mohinder Gurm
                                             ---------------------------------
					      Chief Executive Officer and CFO
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      905 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly
Report  on  Form  10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies
with  the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934,  as  amended,  and  the  information  contained  in such report fairly
presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of
operations  of  the  Company.

This 12th day of November, 2003.


/S/ JUDY B. TURNER
------------------
Judy B. Turner
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer


<PAGE>
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: July 23, 2010                                     |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                    |   |
|                                                    |   |
| /s/ Charles E. Leibold                                  |   |
| Charles E. Leibold                                      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (362 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (36 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (13 KB PDF)
Flows tables (154 KB PDF)
Level tables (123 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (20 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (29 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (632 KB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 11, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BARRY KENNETH BROWN, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00149-CR

Appeal from the

78th District Court

of Wichita County, Texas

(TC# 46,285-B)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24202]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Stanford University; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-
Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

    This is a decision pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 
Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 
2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue., NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 08-047. Applicant: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 
943005-5126. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 TWIN. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 
73 FR 54560, September 22, 2008.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: October 6, 2008.
Faye Robinson,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-24202 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Edward H. Ende et al., as Executors of Edward H. Ende, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

May 15, 1957.

*Willis B. Carman*for executors.

*Richard W. Hawkins*and *Theodore O. Bushell*for Edward H. Ende and others, infants.

*I. Maxwell Small*for Loretta Ende.

Edgar F. Hazleton, S.

In Ms will, decedent left “ Unto my wife, Loretta Ende, only that portion of my estate that she would be entitled to receive * * * if I had died intestate.”

The widow has exercised her right of election and also asserts that she is entitled to receive the equivalent of her intestate share pursuant to the provision mentioning her in the will without exercising her right of election.

However, the children of decedent claim that his widow had abandoned decedent and accordingly is entitled to nothing. (Decedent Estate Law, §§ 18, 87.)

I believe the first thing I should do is to try preliminarily the issue of whether his widow had abandoned decedent so that her status becomes established. *(Matter of Gahan,*194 Misc. 413, affd. 276 App. Div. 647.)

Proceed accordingly.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our reports datedFebruary 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Dorchester Minerals, L.P. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Dorchester Minerals, L.P. on Form S-4 (File No. 333-124544). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 24, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income and the Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000766916
<NAME> AMOCO COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             200
<SECURITIES>                                       388
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4559
<ALLOWANCES>                                        16
<INVENTORY>                                        976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6896
<PP&E>                                           45419
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4972
<BONDS>                                           2519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       13539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30995
<SALES>                                          14015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 15900
<CGS>                                            10185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1518
<INCOME-TAX>                                       416
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 11, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.100 Households and Nonprofit Organizations1** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned,  Albert G. Pastino, Chief Financial Officer of Datatec Systems,
Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to his
knowledge, that:

            The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended
            October 31, 2002 of the Company (the  "Report")  fully complies with
            the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
            fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
            and results of operations of the Company.

                                         /s/ Albert G. Pastino
                                         ---------------------
                                         Albert G. Pastino
                                         Chief Financial Officer

                                         Dated: December 13, 2002
```
#### LOFTIN v. LITHGOW FUNERAL HOMES.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1780 OSCAR LEVONIA SIMPKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLEAMS HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee, and JOSEPH PATTON; RONALD DAVIS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. William M. Catoe, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (8:06-cv-02137-WMC) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar Levonia Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edgar McDonald, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Oscar Levonia Simpkins appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Simpkins’ Title VII complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Simpkins v. Gleams Human Res. Comm’n , No. 8:06-cv-02137-WMC (D.S.C. July 11, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[NECB Logo]

                       NEW ENGLAND COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
================================================================================
                                  P.O. BOX 130
                                WINDSOR, CT 06095

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:  Anson C. Hall                                  Michael Kenslea
          Vice President and CFO                         President and CEO
          New England Community Bancorp                  Olde Port Bank & Trust
          (860) 683-4610                                 (603) 436-8800

                          NEW ENGLAND COMMUNITY BANCORP
                       COMPLETES ACQUISITION OF OLDE PORT

WINDSOR, CT, July 10, 1998--New England Community Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: "NECB")
announced  today that it has completed its acquisition of Olde Port Bank & Trust
("Olde Port") of Portsmouth,  New Hampshire.  Olde Port is NECB's fourth banking
subsidiary and will retain both its name and New Hampshire Bank Charter.

David A. Lentini, Chairman,  President and CEO of NECB commented, "The Olde Port
acquisition  is a great fit with NECB's  strategic  plan. Our ability to acquire
community banks, which enhance the operating  performance of NECB, is one of the
keys to our continued success. The affiliation with NECB will allow Olde Port to
offer an expanded  array of products  and services  within its market area.  The
strong economy of Southern New Hampshire  provides  exciting  opportunities  for
Olde Port to grow beyond its Portsmouth base."

NECB will account for the acquisition using the  pooling-of-interests  method of
accounting.  Under this method, the recorded assets and liabilities of Olde Port
will  be  carried  forward  to  NECB.  In  addition,  all  subsequent  financial
statements will be presented as though the companies had been combined as of the
earliest period presented.

NECB,  with combined total assets of $653 million,  is the parent company of New
England Bank,  Windsor,  Connecticut;  Equity Bank,  Wethersfield,  Connecticut;
Community  Bank,  Bristol,  Connecticut;  and, Olde Port Bank,  Portsmouth,  New
Hampshire.

                               STATISTICAL SUMMARY
                               --------------------

   (IN THOUSANDS; EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
          DATA AS OF MARCH 31, 1998                   NECB           OLDE PORT
                                                -------------------------------
          Total Assets                              $603,013          $49,807
          Total Loans                               $399,653          $30,735
          Total Deposits                            $509,592          $40,509
          Total Capital                              $55,248           $4,893
          Shares Outstanding                           5,172               67
          Book Value Per Share                        $10.68           $72.53
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 16, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40119

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LEONEL HERNANDEZ FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-601-1

--------------------

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Leonel Hernandez Flores (Hernandez) appeals the

sentence that he received after he pleaded guilty to illegal

reentry following deportation. Hernandez argues that the

district court’s sentence under Guidelines it deemed mandatory

was plain error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). He also argues that the district court’s increase in his

sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a 1999 California

drug conviction was plain error, a point the Government concedes.
No. 05-40119

-2-

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Hernandez expressly

waived the right to appeal his sentence but retained the right to

appeal “a sentence imposed above the statutory maximum” or “‘an

upward departure.’” At the rearraignment, the magistrate judge

explained to Hernandez that under the terms of his agreement he

gave up his right to appeal his case but told Hernandez: “You

could appeal for an illegal sentence, however.”

The Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver. The

magistrate judge, however, failed to comply with FED. R. CRIM. P.

11(b)(1)(N) when he described the appeal waiver because the right

to appeal an illegal sentence is broader than the right to appeal

only a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum or an

upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines. Given the

district court’s Rule 11 error, we cannot conclude that Hernandez

knowingly waived his right to appeal the district court’s

application of the Guidelines. United States v. Robinson, 187

F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Portillo, 18

F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, we do not enforce the

appeal waiver.

In light of our recent decision in United States v. GarzaLopez, 410 F.3d 268, 273-75 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert.

filed (Aug. 10, 2005) (No. 05-5892), the district court’s

application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) was reversible plain

error. Thus, Hernandez’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is

REMANDED for resentencing. 
No. 05-40119

-3-

Because Hernandez’s sentence is vacated, this court need not

address his argument that the district court committed error

under Booker by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines

regime. See Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d at 275 & n.2. 

VACATED; REMANDED.
#### Marjory E. Chapman, Plaintiff, *v.*Montgomery W. Chapman, Defendant. 

Supreme Court, Special Term, Warren County,

January 20, 1955.

*467McPhillips, *Fitzgerald & McCarthy*for plaintiff.

*Carusone & Carusone*for defendant.

Andrew W. Ryan, J.

The plaintiff, Marjory E. Chapman, in the above-entitled action has moved this court for an order compelling the defendant herein to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits, or, in the alternative, for leave to plaintiff to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits.

The plaintiff instituted the above-entitled action against the defendant, and after joinder of issue, made a motion at a Special Term of the Supreme Court for summary judgment. Her motion for summary judgment was denied at Special Term, (Gibson, J.), and the plaintiff appealed from the order denying the motion to the Appellate Division. The order of the Special Term denying the motion for summary judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division by order entered on July 14, 1954 *(Chapman*v. Chapman, 284 App. Div. 504).

There is no provision in the decision of the Appellate Division nor in the order, directing the defendant to enter final judgment, nor has there ever been any disposition or determination of the above-entitled action on the merits. All that has transpired up to the present time is, that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has been denied, and the denial of that relief has been affirmed by the Appellate Division. That is the present status of the litigation.

The plaintiff now seeks an order requiring the defendant to enter judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, or, in the alternative, to permit the plaintiff to enter judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits.

The plaintiff in her moving papers alluded to the fact that such relief could have been granted by the Appellate Division, but the fact remains, that the Appellate Division did not provide such relief, nor does it appear that any application has ever been made to the Appellate Division to amend its order incorporating such relief.

The plaintiff submits no authority, nor has this court been able to find any authority, by which this court can grant the relief sought in the moving papers.

The motion is denied, and an order in accordance herewith may be submitted.