alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer Under**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

I, Jeffrey P. Jacobs, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jacobs Entertainment, Inc. (“registrant”);

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report.

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Reserved;

(c)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(d)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design of operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date:      | March 27, 2007          |   |
|------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Signature: | /s/ Jeffrey P. Jacobs   |   |
|       | Jeffrey P. Jacobs       |   |
| Title:     | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 27, 2010, Archimica, 
Inc., 2460 W. Bennett Street, Springfield, Missouri 65807-1229, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisdexamfetamine (1205)....................  II
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Phenylacetone (8501).......................  II
Methadone Intermediate (9254)..............  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than November 1, 2010.

    Dated: August 2, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-21775 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 5 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), PURSUANT TO SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert E. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of CAE Inc., certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of CAE Inc.;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the issuer and have:  (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions 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(c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the 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 issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting. Date: June 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. BrownName: Robert E. BrownTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES CAMPBELL.

October 3, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 34.4

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S ATTESTATION REPORT CONCERNING SERVICING
ACTIVITIES OF COLLEGE LOAN CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2006

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders
College Loan Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the
accompanying Management's Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that College Loan Corporation (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for asset backed
securitization transactions backed by student loan receivables listed on
Appendix B of Management's Report (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i),
1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which management has
determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards
of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed
transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the
Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and
securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period
covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing
activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the
Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material
noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report
and that may have affected the Company's servicing activities during the period
covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that College Loan
Corporation complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the asset backed securitization
transactions backed by student loan receivables is fairly stated, in all
material respects.

| | /s/ Grant Thornton LLP
| | ----------------------

Irvine, California
March 29, 2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEMONT CHRISTOPHER BLUE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:97-cr-00131-JRS; 3:06-cv-00012-JRS) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demont Christopher Blue, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Demont C. Blue seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blue has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.7



LOGO



| |  |                                                                                 |  |                        |  |                                          
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  | KPMG LLP
Yonge Corporate Centre 4100 Yonge
St. Suite 200 North York, ON
M2P 2H3 |  | Telephone
Fax Internet |  | (416) 228-7000
(416) 228-7123
www.kpmg.ca

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Novadaq
Technologies Inc.

We consent to the use of:



| |  | our Independent Auditors Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 24, 2015 on the consolidated financial statements of
Novadaq Technologies Inc. (the Company), which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2014, the consolidated statement of loss and comprehensive loss, changes in shareholders equity and
cash flows for the year then ended, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information, and
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 24, 2015 on the Companys internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2014,
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

each of which is included in this annual report on Form 40-F/A (Amendment No.
1) of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants

July 10, 2015

Toronto, Canada
#### THOMPSON v. BRADLEY

No. 242P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 636

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 June 2001.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0 256

_________________ WILLIAM JAMES R

UPNOW, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. MONTANA STATE AUDITOR AND COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE; MIKE WINSOR; JENNIFER HUDSON; and XYZ government subdivision , Defendants and Appell ees
. O R D E R

_________________ This Court review s briefs to ensure compliance with Rule 12 of the Montana Rul es of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing Rupnow ’ s opening brief filed electronically on August 14 , 202 3 , this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the below

-referenced r ule. M. R. App. P. 12( 1 )(i) requires that the relevant judgment, order, findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury instruction, ruling or decision from which the appeal is taken be included as an appendix with Rupnow ’ s brief to this Court. Rupnow ’ s brief did not include a copy of the District Court’s May 9 , 2022 Order Granting Defendants ’ Motion to Dismiss , which he appeals

. IT IS ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Rupnow shall electronically file with Clerk of this Court a copy of the relevant order as an appendix and shall serve one copy of the relevant order on each counsel of record

. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Temporary Ele ctronic Filin g Rule 12(a)(4) , the seven paper copi es of the Appellant’s Opening brief must comply with Rule 12(1)(i), M. R. App. P., including copies of the orders and judgment from which the appeal is taken; and 08/15/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0256IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times f or any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the relevant judgment or order

. The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide a true c opy of this Order to Rupnow ’ s counsel and to all counsel upon whom the brie f was served. DATED this 15 day of August, 202 3

.

Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court August 15 2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VERONICA ROSIBELLE MENDEZ

SIBRIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71474

Agency No. A206

- 269

- 317

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 2 1 , 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Veronica Rosibelle Mendez Sibrian , a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her

motion to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 71474

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a

motion to reconsider or reopen

. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

Cir. 2005)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider

as untimely and because it failed to specify any error in law or fact in the prior

removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b )(1), (2).

To the extent the agency construed Mendez Sibrian’s motion to reconsider as a

motion to reopen, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying it as untimely

and for failure to present previously unavailable and material evidence. See

Moha mmed , 400 F.3d at 793 (agency may construe motions based on their

underlying purpose); Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010)

(motion to reopen must generally be filed within ninety days ; “[t]he BIA can deny

a motion to reopen [for] .

. . failure to introduce previously unavailable, material

evidence

. ” (citation omitted))

. T he BIA acted within its broad discretion in

determining that Mendez Sibrian’s e vidence was in sufficient to warrant reopening

given the IJ ’s underlying adverse credibili ty determination. Toufighi v. Mukasey

,

538 F.3d 988, 996

- 97 (9th Cir. 2007) ( evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse

credibility determination ).3 18

- 71474

To the extent Mendez Sibrian challenges the IJ’s February 13, 2017 order

and the denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claim s

, we lack

jurisdiction to consider those contentions because the petition for review is not

timely as to that order

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must

be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 00 826

- CV

Style: Michael Wayne Barnes

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : November 21, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to order district clerk to prepare a transcript of hearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant’s motion is denied. The district clerk has no duty to prepare a reporter’s record. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 35.3(b). Further, the court reporter has filed an information sheet with this Court stating that

there is no reporter’s record in this case. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this order.

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: December 4, 2013