alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trico Marine Services, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrant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)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 11, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Joe CompofeliceJoe CompofeliceChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Trico Marine Services, Inc.

Form 10-Q

Quarterly Report

Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2003



Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Thomas E. Fairley, Chief Executive Officer of Trico Marine Services, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.    the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.    the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by such Report.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,582,933
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,267,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,318,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,467,725
<PP&E>                                         1,223,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                   346,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,465,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,742,721
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                       12,658
<COMMON>                                          56,794
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,847,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,465,531
<SALES>                                        5,484,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,484,071
<CGS>                                          4,158,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,158,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,177,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               141,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   46,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               46,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      46,078
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .01
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS10-5]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# Description:

In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in open session for its regular meeting:

# Location:

FDIC Building, 1776 F Street NW., Room 4085, Washington, DC 20429.

# Date:

October 13, 2010.

# Time:

10:30 a.m.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

# Summary Agenda:

September 22, 2010 minutes—Open Session.

Louisiana Compliance Review.

Texas Compliance Review.

(No substantive discussion of the above items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the ASC requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.)

# Discussion Agenda:

National Registry Fee.

# How to Attend and Observe an ASC meeting:

                        E-mail your name, organization and contact information to                         *meetings@asc.gov.*                        You may also send a written request via U.S. Mail, fax or commercial carrier to the Executive Director of the ASC, 1401 H Street NW., Ste. 760, Washington, DC 20005. Your request must be received no later than midnight, ET, on Tuesday, October 12, 2010. Attendees must have a valid government-issued photo ID and must agree to submit to reasonable security measures. The meeting space is intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that reasonable basis.                    

Dated: October 6, 2010.

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-25659 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Trenton Garrett v. Texas 18th U.S. District Representative Sheila 

Jackson Lee

Appellate case number: 01-21-00498-CV

Trial court case number: 1173525

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 3, 2021

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Julie Countiss_________

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Hightower, Countiss, and Guerra.

Date: ____January 6, 2022___
584 A.2d 229

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WALTER HAMMARY, JR.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 33.9



|     |  |                                                           
|---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661 312-233-6440
|    
|    

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the
Servicer).

National Tax Search, LLC (NTS) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2016 and for the period
from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR). NTS has used the servicing
criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the
Applicable Servicing Criteria) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC
Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTSs TaxQ system (the
Platform Transactions).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has
concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as
Vendor to Servicer



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|LOGO                                         
|                                             
|Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO
January 23, 2017
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,**Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.                  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q/A of Blyth, Inc.;

 

2.                  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c) and I5d-15(e)) for theregistrant 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 by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.                 The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  August 4, 2004            |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/  Robert B. Goergen                |   |
| Robert  B. Goergen                    |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
585 A.2d 378

#### CAROLYN SULLIVAN v. HOWARD GRABELLE, M.D.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 94 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require congressional approval 

before the appropriation of funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs 

major medical facility leases. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California (for herself, Mr. TAKANO, and Ms. KUSTER of 

New Hampshire) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require congressional approval before the appropriation of funds for 

the Department of Veterans Affairs major medical facility leases. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Build a Better VA 

5 Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 94 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS MAJOR MEDICAL FACIL3 ITY LEASES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8104(a)(2) of title 38, 

5 United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘No funds’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) 

7 No funds’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘or any major medical facility 

9 lease’’; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘or lease’’; and 

11 (4) by adding at the end the following new sub12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(B) No funds may be appropriated for any fiscal 

14 year for any major medical facility lease unless the Com15 mittees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of 

16 Representatives adopt resolutions approving the lease.’’. 

17 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub18 section (a) shall apply with respect to a lease entered into 

19 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
584 A.2d 214

#### LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION v. ESTATE OF SIDNEY ELKMAN.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 238 *N.J.Super.*588, 570 A.2d 472)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHAMAR T. STANFORD

, )

)

Defendant Below, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 277, 2017

)

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

Plaintiff Below, )

Appellee.

ORDER

This ___ day of _______________, 201 7 , having considered the State’s

Motion to Remand, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the case is remanded to Superior Court for

the Superior Court to address any outstanding claims in Stanford’s May 17, 2017

amend ed Motion for Postconviction Relief in the first instance

.

Ju risdiction is not retained.

_______________________________/s/ Judge Seitz, Collins

Court: DE Supreme Court

File & Serve

Transaction ID: 60872958

Current Date: Jul 25, 2017

Case Number: 277,2017

Case Name: Stanford, Shamar v. State of Delaware
#### Murphy *v.*State.

Opinion delivered July 6, 1925.

Witnesses — recaul for cross-examination. — In a felony prosecution, it was not error, after the jury has been partially instructed, to refuse to permit the defense to recall a witness for re-cross-examination, where the issue was simple and the defendant had had full opportunity for cross-examination.

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Ft. Smith District; *John E. Tatum,*Judge;

affirmed.

*Holland, Holland <& Holland,*for appellant.

*H. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *Darden Moose,*Assistant, for appellee.

Hart, J.

Lucile Murphy prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of conviction for having in her possession morphine in violation of the statute.

This is the second appeal in the case, and reference is made to the opinion on the former appeal for a fuller statement of facts. *Starr*v. *State,*165 Ark. 511.

*276It appears that Lucile Starr had married, and that Murphy was her real name when she was convicted. The only ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in refusing to reopen the case for the purpose of allowing additional testimony to be taken before the jury. After the evidence had been taken and the jury partially instructed, the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that, if it should find from the evidence that the defendant had three grains of morphine in her possession, and that she had procured it from a druggist on the prescription of a physician and possessed it for her own use, then such possession of three grains of morphine would not be a violation of the statute.

The court modified the instruction by changing the amount of morphine to ten grains and gave it to the jury as modified. The defendant then asked the court to recall one of the witnesses for further cross-examination with reference to the amount of morphine in her possession. The court refused to allow the defendant to recall the witness because the witness had been excused, and there might be a delay in the ease by reopening it for further testimony.

There was no error in the ruling of the court. This was the second trial of the case, and the issue of fact was simple. The attorney for the defendant had full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and the record shows that each one was cross-examined at length. No witness testified that the defendant had only three grains of morphine in her possession. According to her own testimony, she had ten grains, which she had received on the prescription of a physician to be taken as medicine.

On the part of the State, it was shown that she had twelve grains of morphine in her possession when she was arrested, and there was other evidence tending to show that she was a morphine addict. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the court abused its *277discretion in refusing to reopen the case as requested. *Teel*v. *State,*129 Ark. 180; *Jones*v. *St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co.,*96 Ark. 366.

Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.
584 A.2d 204

#### BEN GIUNTA v. ROBERT E. STEVENS.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                               HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HMN Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael McNeil,
President of the Company, and Jon Eberle, Senior Vice President and CFO of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:   August 10, 2004                             /s/ Michael McNeil
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Michael McNeil,
                                              President/Chief Executive Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                                    /s/ Jon Eberle
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Jon Eberle,
                                              Senior Vice President/Chief
                                              Financial Officer (Principal
                                              Financial Officer)
585 A.2d 376

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JON MICHAEL PARDOLL.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in the light of *State v. Pineda,*119 *N.J.*621, 575 A.2d 855 (1990).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK EDDIE McKENZIE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-17448

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00450-ALA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 1, 2011

San Francisco, California

 

Before: WALLACE, BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner McKenzie appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17448

McKenzie contends that his constitutional right to due process was violated

when, during voir dire, the judge stated that he would have the discretion to grant

probation and the prosecutor stated that the court could reduce the offense to a

misdemeanor. Because McKenzie does not show that the California Court of

Appeal’s decision rejecting McKenzie’s contentions was contrary to or an

unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, the district court did not err

in denying the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Further, McKenzie’s trial was

not “so fundamentally unfair” that it denied McKenzie due process under Donnelly

v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 645 (1974). 

AFFIRMED.