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

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James Briscoe, of Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp.
(formerly Liberty Star Gold Corp.), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Liberty
Star Uranium & Metals Corp. (formerly Liberty Star Gold Corp.);

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 consolidated 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4. The company's other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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
company, 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
company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the
company'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
company'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
company's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 28, 2008



/s/ James
BriscoeJames Briscoe President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)

---
Opinion filed March 5, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

No. 11-07-00215-CV

__________

 MARY LOU WILCOX, Appellant

V.

 HOWARD D. WILCOX ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 172nd District Court

 Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-171,492

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Mary Lou Wilcox has filed in this court a motion to dismiss her appeal. Appellant states that

the parties have agreed to settle their differences and that, therefore, her appeal is moot. The motion

is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 5, 2009

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-114134 and 333-139574) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-131517 and 333-124830), of our reports datedFebruary 28, 2007, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Santarus, Inc.,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Santarus, Inc. included in its AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Diego, California
froz_ex1061.htm


Exhibit 10.61


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 



9
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A.
                 Annual Officer's Certificate of the Servicer
                      Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997-B



         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Bank One, Texas,
N.A., as Servicer (the "Servicer"), pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 1997 (the "Agreement") between the
Servicer and Bankers Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby
certify as follows:

         (1)      All terms used herein that are defined in the Agreement shall
                  have the meanings provided in the Agreement, unless otherwise
                  defined herein.

         (2)      The undersigned is an officer of the Servicer who is duly
                  authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver
                  this Certificate.

         (3)      A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period
                  from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 (the "Servicing
                  Period") and its performance under the Agreement has been made
                  under my supervision.

         (4)      Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my
                  knowledge, fulfilled all of its material obligations under the
                  Agreement throughout the Servicing Period except as set forth
                  in paragraph (5) below.

         (5)      The following is a brief description of each default in the
                  fulfillment of the Servicer's obligations under the Agreement
                  known to me to have been made by the Servicer during the
                  Servicing Period, which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of
                  each such default and (ii) the current status of each default:
                  NONE



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Servicer has caused this Certificate to be executed by a
duly authorized officer as of the 31st day of December 2000.


                                   BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A.,
                                   as Servicer



                                   By:       /s/ Tracie H. Klein
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Tracie H. Klein
                                             Title: Vice President
News United States Air Force
 Maintainers: The driving forcePublished Nov. 10, 2016
                        
                        By Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs
                        
                        
                        Air Education and Training Command
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)** -- The Profession of Arms Center of Excellence released a new video Nov. 10, as part of the Heritage Today series.
“Driving Force – Maintainers” pays tribute to aircraft maintenance Airmen and focuses on the dedication and culture of the more than 100,000 total force flightline warriors serving today.
Brig. Gen. Walter J. Lindsley, the director of logistics, deputy chief of staff logistics, engineering and force protection, Headquarters, Air Force at the Pentagon, described the Air Force’s maintainers as “crazy loyal to our country and tirelessly devoted to our mission.”
“And we need them -- active duty, Guard, Reserves, and civilians,” he added. “We work as one team ... in one fight.”
Master Sgt. James Weeks, the superintendent of the Maintenance Management School at Air Education and Training Command headquarters here, is the voice behind the recording.
“I have worked on the B-2 (Spirit), the C-130E and H models, and most recently was part of the special airlift missions at Joint Base Andrews,” he described. “As the video states, aircraft maintainers are a special breed of individuals. They work in all conditions, at all hours and make sacrifices time and again to make the mission happen.”
The 19-year veteran said it was an honor to work with what, “I believe are the most dedicated, hardest working, mission driven, selfless group of people in the Air Force – the aircraft maintainers.”
The Heritage Today video series is designed to inspire Airmen through stories of Air Force heritage linked to current real-world Air Force operations.
“Our Heritage Today videos reinforce Airmen identities – we recognize, feel, and live them,” said Col. Joseph Rizzuto, the PACE director. “These videos help Airmen better understand principles of our Air Force culture and our core values.”
“I hope it (the video) will instill an added sense of pride in maintainers and help recruit those that we need to take our place,” Weeks said.maintainers 



AETC
#### IN RE HUFF

No. 532P00

Case below: 140 N.C. App. 288

Notice of appeal by respondent (James J. Huff) pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) dismissed ex mero motu 1 February 2001. Petition by respondent (James J. Huff) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 February 2001. Notice of appeal by respondent (Tampatha C. Huff) pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) dismissed ex mero motu 1 February 2001. Petition by respondent (Tampatha C. Huff) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 February 2001.

Justice Edmunds recused.
#### MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY EUGENE MAULDIN, M.D., and SYLVA ANESTHESIOLOGY, P.A.

No. 222PA00

(Filed 6 April 2001)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 137 N.C. App. 690, 529 S.E.2d 697 (2000), reversing an order for summary judgment entered 30 September 1998 by Downs, J., in Superior Court, Macon County, and remanding for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 2001.

*Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by James W. Williams and Gary T. Bruce, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Wade E. Byrd; and Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A., by Steven B. Williamson, for defendant-appellants.*

*Clifford Britt, of counsel, North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.*
      *353
      *Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by James P. Cooney III, on behalf of the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

Justice MARTIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value.

AFFIRMED.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 227 

AN ACT 

To authorize the transfer of certain funds to improve security 

at United States embassies and other diplomatic facilities 

worldwide, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 227 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Embassy Security 

3 Funds Transfer Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

5 OF SECURITY AT UNITED STATES EMBASSIES 

6 AND OTHER DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES WORLD7 WIDE. 

8 (a) TRANSFER AUTHORITY.—Funds appropriated by 

9 title VIII of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, 

10 and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 (divi11 sion I of Public Law 112–74; 125 Stat. 1265) under the 

12 headings ‘‘DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS’’ and 

13 ‘‘EMBASSY SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTE14 NANCE’’ may be transferred between such headings. 

15 (b) AVAILABILITY.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any funds transferred to a 

17 heading under subsection (a) shall be merged with 

18 funds in the heading to which transferred, and shall, 

19 except as provided in paragraph (2), be available 

20 subject to the same terms and conditions as the 

21 funds with which merged. 

22 (2) DURATION OF AVAILABILITY.—Any funds 

23 transferred under subsection (a) shall be available 

24 for the same period for which such funds were origi25 nally appropriated. 
3 

†S 227 ES

1 (c) NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.—Any transfer of 

2 funds under subsection (a) shall be subject to the regular 

3 notification procedures of the Committees on Appropria4 tions of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Passed the Senate February 4, 2013. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 227 

AN ACT 

To authorize the transfer of certain funds to imother purposes. other diplomatic facilities worldwide, and for prove security at United States embassies and
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00151-CR

No. 10-21-00152-CR

No. 10-21-00153-CR

No. 10-21-00154-CR

MARCELLO LACRAIG GIBBS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. D37514, D37513,

D36431, and D36433

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In these proceedings, appellant, Marcello LaCraig Gibbs, challenges the trial 

court's denial of his pro se "Motion to Obtain Trial Documents in Forma Pauperis" in each 

of these cases. The right of appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; see also Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2002). Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. State v. 
Gibbs v. State Page 2

Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Because appellant is not appealing 

from a judgment of conviction or an otherwise appealable order, we have no jurisdiction. 

See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ("'[T]he standard for 

determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the 

appeal is authorized by law.'" (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008))). We therefore dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant may file a motion for rehearing with this Court within fifteen days after 

the opinion and judgments are rendered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If appellant desires to 

have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that 

petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after either 

this Court's judgments are rendered or the day that the last timely motion for rehearing 

is overruled by this Court. See id. at 68.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Wright1

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 14, 2021

Do not publish

[CR25]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
#### Samuel PANIAGUA and Victor Apodaca, Jr., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46482.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1973.

*129Joseph (Sib) Abraham, Jr. and Anthony C. Aguilar, El Paso, for appellants.

Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty., Gary B. Weiser, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal by sureties from a judgment forfeiting an appearance bond. Rule 414 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require that an appellant’s brief be filed with the appellate court within thirty days after filing of the transcript. This procedure is applicable in the appeal of bond forfeiture cases in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Article 44.44, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

No brief was filed in this case within the time required. No good cause is shown for such failure. See Young v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 928, and Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 141.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT
        22.1


SUBSIDIARIES





Oblio
      Telecom, Inc.





Titan
      Communications, Inc.





Titan
      PCB
      West, Inc.





Titan
      PCB
      East, Inc.





Titan
      Nexus, Inc.





Titan
      Wireless Communications, Inc. (Titan Wireless RM, Inc.)





StartTalk,
      Inc.





Pinless,
      Inc.





Appalachian
      Oil Company, Inc.





Appco-KY,
      Inc.





USA
      Detergents, Inc.





Titan
      Apparel, Inc.
Executive Order 13550

# Establishment of Pakistan and Afghanistan Support Office

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 202 of the Revised Statutes (22 U.S.C. 2656) and section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1.***Establishment.*                    There is established within the Department of State, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization to be known as the Pakistan and Afghanistan Support Office (PASO).                

**Sec. 2.***Purpose of the Temporary Organization.*                    The purpose of the PASO shall be to perform the specific project of supporting executive departments and agencies in strengthening the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, enhancing the capacity of those governments to resist extremists, and maintaining an effective U.S. diplomatic presence in both countries.                

**Sec. 3.***Functions of the Temporary Organization.*                    In carrying out the purpose set forth in section 2, the PASO shall:                

(a)  support executive departments and agencies in efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan, to promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people and eventually can function, especially regarding internal security, with limited international support, and to stimulate an economy that will provide licit opportunity for the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan;

(b)  assume the functions assigned to the Afghanistan Support Office (ASO) as of the date of this order; and

(c)  perform such other functions related to the specific project set forth in section 2 as the Secretary of State (Secretary) may assign.

**Sec. 4.***Personnel and Administration.*                    The PASO shall be headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary.  The PASO shall be based in Washington, D.C., Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  The Secretary shall transfer from the ASO to the PASO the personnel, assets, liabilities, and records of the ASO.                

**Sec. 5.***General Provisions.*

(a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or 

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The PASO shall terminate at the end of the maximum period permitted by section 3161(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, unless sooner terminated by the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-21020

Billing code 3195-W0-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1997
<CASH>                                           1,054
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                       149
<INVENTORY>                                     22,676
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,159
<PP&E>                                          78,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,643
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,129
<SALES>                                         57,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,887
<CGS>                                           33,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,165
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,390
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
* 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

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-30494

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VANCE ROOKS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Div.

USDC No. 5:04-CR-50067-ALL

_________________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We AFFIRM Rooks’s convictions. The jury instruction properly

stated the jury could find Rooks guilty of either receiving or

distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2252A(a)(2) because the statute is unambiguous and because “a

disjunctive statute may be pleaded conjunctively and proved

disjunctively.” See United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 736

(5th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, Rooks’s receiving conviction under

18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and his possession conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) are neither multiplicitous nor violate the
2

Fifth Amendment because they are different crimes: a person can

possess child pornography he manufactured, and a person might no

longer possess child pornography he once received. We also note

that the two convictions were for different images of child

pornography.

AFFIRMED.
#### Cora WILLIAMS v. SLOSS SHEFFIELD STEEL *&*IRON CO.

6 Div. 601.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 7, 1935.

Perry & Powell, of Birmingham, and Jas. O. Tolbert, of Montgomery, for petitioner.

Bradley, Baldwin, All & White, of Birmingham, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition dismissed by petitioner.