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

# **Certificate of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Marc W. Eller, certify that:

1.             I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (“NNPP”);

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present, in all materialrespects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of NNPP as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.

4.             NNPP’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inthe Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for NNPP and have:

a.                Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to NNPP, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.                Evaluated the effectiveness ofNNPP’s disclosure control’s and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.                Disclosed in this report anychange in NNPP’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during NNPP’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, NNPP’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.             NNPP’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to NNPP’s auditors and the audit committee of NNPP’s board of directors:

a.                All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect NNPP’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.                Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in NNPP’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:    August 4, 2003 

./s/ Marc W. Eller                                             Marc W. Eller, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer
Order filed January 5, 2012 

In The 

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00042-CR 

__________ 

JENNIFER MARIE VALLEY, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court 

Palo Pinto County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 14161F 

O R D E R

 This appeal has been unduly stalled due to the failure of appellant’s retained counsel, 

Judith Mattern Hearn, to file an appellate brief. The brief was originally due on June 23, 2011. 

On June 22, counsel filed her first motion for extension, which this court granted. On August 8, 

counsel filed her second motion for extension, which was also granted. On September 2, counsel 

filed her third motion for extension, which was also granted, extending the due date to October 7. 

After counsel failed to file a brief, this court entered a stand-and-deliver order on November 3. 
2 

In the order, this court directed counsel to either file a brief by November 16, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. 

or appear in person at that time and explain the inordinate delay in the preparation of appellant’s 

brief. Counsel appeared in person at the designated time and informed the court that she 

expected to have the brief filed before the end of the week, which would have been Friday, 

November 18, 2011. In the interest of justice, this court afforded counsel extra time; we 

informed counsel by letter dated November 18 that the brief was due on or before December 2, 

2011. After counsel again failed to file a brief, this court issued an order on December 15, 2011, 

in which we specifically ordered Judith Mattern Hearn to file a brief on behalf of appellant on or 

before 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2011, in this court. In the order, we also informed counsel 

that, if she failed to obey the order, “a contempt proceeding may be initiated” against her. 

 Despite being warned of impending contempt proceedings, counsel has yet to file an 

appellate brief. Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. The 

trial court is instructed to conduct a hearing on or before February 3, 2012, to determine the 

following: 

1. Whether Judith Mattern Hearn should be held in contempt of court; 

2. Whether Jennifer Marie Valley desires to prosecute this appeal; and 

3. Whether Jennifer Marie Valley is indigent, or if not indigent, whether Judith 

Mattern Hearn has abandoned the appeal. 

The trial court is directed to make appropriate findings and recommendations pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(b). The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare and forward to this court a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings, recommendations, and any orders of the trial 

court. The court reporter is directed to prepare and forward to this court the reporter’s record 

from the hearing. The supplemental records are due to be filed in this court on or before 

February 21, 2012. 

 The appeal is abated. 

 

 PER CURIAM 

January 5, 2012 

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-09-00396-CR

ROBERTO AGUILAR APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the appellant’s AMotion To Dismiss Appeal.@ The 

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 22, 2010

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 10, 2010
    /s/ Don M. BaileyDon M. BaileyChief Executive Officer 34
### NUMBER 13

- 1 6

- 00 231

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT ,

v.

ANTHONY CHRISTIAN CA SAS , APPELLEE

.

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes , and Longoria

Order Per Curiam
Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney in and for

Victoria County, Texas, has filed a motion for stay of proceedings in the above cause.

On April 12, 2016 , the trial court g ranted a motion to suppress evidence. T he State has
filed a notice of appeal and has requested a stay in the trial court ’ s proceedi ngs pending
disposition of its appeal. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. § 44.01( a )(5), (e) ( West
,2

Westlaw through Ch. 46, 2015 R.S. ). The Court, having examined and fully considered
the motion for stay of proceedings, is of the opinion that said motion should be granted.
The motion for stay is hereby GRANTED, and the trial court's proceedings are hereby
ordered STAYED pending disposition of the State ’ s appeal.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 5 th day o f May , 20 1 6

.
#### GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLES956000-L14200000-BJ0000-LXSITRST0000]


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; North Carolina.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States office in 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management-Eastern 
States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: 
Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The survey was requested by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    The lands surveyed are:

Swain County, North Carolina

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion 
of the Qualla Indian Boundary, land held in trust for the Eastern Band 
of Cherokee Indians, in Swain County, in the State of North Carolina, 
and was accepted September 7, 2010.
    We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It 
will be available to the public as a matter of information.
    If BLM receives a protest against the survey, as shown on the plat, 
prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing 
pending our consideration of the protest.
    We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have 
accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, 
including decisions on appeals.

    Dated: October 12, 2010.
John Sroufe,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 2010-26590 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 12, 2015

t0609 

# Order

Clerk June 12, 2015

150642

JAMES H. DILUIGI and KRISTA J. DIL UIGI,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 150642

COA: 310886

St Clair CC: 11

- 000815

- CH

RBS CITIZENS N.A., f/k/a CHARTER ONE

BANK, N.A. and FREDDIE MAC,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

CCO MORTGAGE,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE t he judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals erred in holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed

regarding notice. To the extent that the Court of Appeals rested its holding on the

proposition that MCL 600.3204(4)(a), as amended by 2009 PA 29, requires a borrower to

receive actual notice of his or her right to seek a home loan modification, see MCL

600.3205a to MCL 600.3205d [repealed by 2012 PA 521], the Court of Appeals is

mistaken. As Judge Riordan’s dissenting opinion correctly o bserves, MCL 600.3205a(3)

simply requires that notice be given “by regular first

- class mail and by certified mail,

return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to the borrower, both sent to the

borrower’s last known address.” Because it is undisputed that defendants complied with

the statutory requirements by providing plaintiffs with both forms of mailed notice,

summary disposition in favor of defendants was proper. For these reasons, we

REINSTATE the May 31, 2012 judgment of the St. Clair Circuit Co urt that granted the

defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARMEN MICHAEL LABRUNO.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HAKEEM SHAKOOR, A/K/A MARK JACKSON.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS W. SCOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 99-2085

ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-99-572-A)

Submitted: December 22, 1999

Decided: February 28, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,

and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas W. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Warren Whitney, Sr.,

Kathleen Dick Leslie, WHITNEY & BOGRIS, Towson, Maryland,

for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas W. Scott appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice his complaint against ADT Security Systems, Inc.,

in which he asserted a claim for breach of contract. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Scott v. ADT Security Sys., Inc., No. CA-99-572-A (E.D. Va. July 30,

1999). Scott also challenges the district court's ruling that his motion

for Rule 111 sanctions would be moot in light of the dismissal of the

action. The district court's ruling effectively barred Scott from filing

the motion. A federal court may consider collateral issues, such as a

Rule 11 motion, after the entry of a final order. See Cooter & Gell

v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990). Therefore, the district

court's dismissal of the case would not moot the motion for sanctions.

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the action but remand to the

district court to allow Scott to file his motion for sanctions.2 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 IN PART AND REMANDED IN PART

_________________________________________________________________

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

2 We express no opinion as to whether sanctions are warranted.

 2
Exhibit 10.2


 


AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE WITH OPTION TO BUY DATED MARCH 10, 2006 AND AMENDMENT #1 TO SAID LEASE
AND ALL LEASES AND AMENDMENTS DATED PRIOR TO MARCH 10, 2016


 



BETWEEN: ATHENA MINERALS INC. AND IT’S PARENT COMPANY ATHENA SILVER CORP. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO
AS “ATHENA” OR AS THE “LESSEE”)


 


AND:


 


BRUCE D. STRACHAN AND ELIZABETH K. STRACHAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE BRUCE AND ELIZABETH STRACHAN REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST DATED 7-25-2007 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “LESSOR”)


 



SUBJECT PROPERTY:


(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “LEASED PREMISES”)


 


ASSESSOR’S PARCEL #0517-251-05-0-000 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 413.22 ACRES DESCRIBED AS
THE LAND EMBRACED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING PATENTED MINING CLAIMS: QUAD DEUCE I, QUAD DEUCE II, QUAD DEUCE III, QUAD DEUCE IV,
QUAD DEUCE V, QUAD DEUCE X, QUAD DEUCE XII, QUAD DEUCE XIV, QUAD DEUCE 22, PAL #16, PAL #17, PAL #35, PAL #36, LANGTRY #1,
LANGTRY #2, LANGTRY #4, LANGTRY #5, LANGTRY #6, CISCO #1, CISCO #2 AND CISCO #3 LODE MINING CLAIMS WHICH ARE SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED ON MINERAL SURVEY #6777 EMBRACING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 6, 7 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO
BASE AND MERIDIAN IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.


 


AND:


 


THE LAND EMBRACED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS: LILLY 10 (CAMC 290263) AND QUAD
DEUCE XIII (CAMC 306178)


 





	/s/ JCP                            	/s/ BDS AND EKS              
	LESSEE’S INITIALS	LESSOR’S INITIALS



 


 


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     

    

 


LESSEE AND LESSOR HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREE THAT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS LISTED OF PAGE #1 OF THIS DOCUMENT
SHALL BE TERMINATED UPON SIGNING OF THIS DOCUMENT BY BOTH LESSEE AND LESSOR AND THEREAFTER SAID DOCUMENTS SHALL BE NULL AND
VOID AND THAT ALL OBLIGATIONS OF BOTH LESSEE AND LESSOR WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENTS SHALL BE TERMIANTED AND SHALL
BE NULL AND VOID UPON SIGNING BY BOTH LESSEE AND LESSOR.


 





 



 


LESSEE: ATHENA MINERALS INC.


 


	/s/ JOHN C. POWER                                   	April 28, 2020                    
	BY: JOHN C. POWER, PRESIDENT	DATE



 


 





 



 


LESSOR: BRUCE D. STRACHAN & ELIZABETH K. STRACHAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE BRUCE AND ELIZABETH STRACHAN
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED 7-25-2007


 





	/s/ BRUCE D. STRACHAN                              	April 21, 2020                    
	BY: BRUCE D. STRACHAN, TRUSTEE	DATE



 


 








	/s/ ELIZABETH K. STRACHAN                          	April 21, 2020                    
	BY: ELIZABETH K. STRACHAN, TRUSTEE	DATE



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    	 	2
Exhibit 32.1
  
 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 OCTuS, Inc. (“OCTuS”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, Christian J. Soderquist, President and Chief Executive Officer of OCTuS, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of OCTuS.
 
 This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to OCTuS and will be retained by OCTuS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Date:  September 26, 2011
 
 /s/ CHRISTIAN J. SODERQUIST
 Christian J. Soderquist
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 31****RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, Henry R. Mandell certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006/s/ Henry R. MandellHenry R. Mandell
#### WILLIAM G. BURRIS, JR., & SON, INC., T/A ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS, ETC. v. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 214 *N.J.Super.*95)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN W. UVEGES.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE OF THE ALLEGED WILL OF CECILIA FURMAN, DECEASED.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.