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

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., Principal Executive Officer of Empire
Financial Holding Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial Holding
Company;

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 annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business 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 small business issuer and
have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls
   and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
   information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business 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 and based on such evaluation; and

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
   internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
   business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is
   reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.
---------------------------
Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., President
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### RONALD BOOTH v. TOWNSHIP OF WINSLOW.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 24, 2012 JOHN LEY

CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 11-14934 Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:97-cr-06063-KLR-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus BARBARA ANN MURRAY, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (April 24, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:In May 2000, Barbara Murray was convict ed of multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) fo r engaging with Richard Adam and others in “a scheme to defraud people s eeking venture capital loans. In exchange for advance payment of a substantial fee, Adam and his associates falsely promised to obtain multimillion dollar loans for would-be borrowers.” United States v. Murray , 154 Fed. Appx. 740, 742 (11 thCir. 2005). 1 On appeal, we affirmed Murray’s convictions, but, on the Governme nt’s cross-appeal, we vacated her sentences and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 747. On April 19, 2006, Murray was resentenced to concurrent terms of 12 months and one day, with a three-year term of supervised release. In April 2006, Murray moved the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate her convictions; the court denied her motion, and we declined to issue a certificate of appealability to allow her to appeal the denial. She moved the court for § 2255 relief again, on June 24, 2010, claiming that she was innocent of the crimes for which she had been convicted and, moreover, that the Government had improperly withheld evidence of her innocence. A magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the motion as successive, but the court has not acted on the recommendation. Then, on September 7, 2011, Murray moved the court,

1 Our mandate issued on February 23, 2006. 2pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedur e 60(b)(3), to set aside her convictions on the ground that they had been obtained by the Government by fraud. In the same document, she moved the court to gr ant her a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a). The court denied both motions, and Murray appeals the rulings. Murray’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion was untimely, since it was filed more than one year after the conclusion of her tria l. The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Murray’s Rule 33(a) motion was also untimely, as it was filed more than three years after the verdicts of guilty. See Rule 33(b). Hence, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain that motion. And if construed as motions for § 2255 relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the two motions because they would be successive. Murray must, instead, move this court for leave to file a successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 22(b)(3). AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of Quovadx, Inc. and in the related prospectuses of our report dated
February 3, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Quovadx, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2002:

     1.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-30356) pertaining to the
          Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
          Plan, 1999 Director Option Plan and 2000 Non-Statutory Option Plan

     2.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-67436) pertaining to the
          Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
          Plan, 1999 Director Option Plan and 2000 Non-Statutory Option Plan

     3.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-88408) pertaining to the
          Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
          Plan, Amended and Restated 1999 Director Option Plan and Amended and
          Restated 2000 Non-Statutory Option Plan

     4.   Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form
          S-4 on Form S-8 (No. 333-67650) pertaining to the Healthcare.com
          Corporation Stock Option Plan, Healthcare.com Corporation
          Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, Healthcare.com Corporation
          Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, and Healthcare.com
          Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan

     5.   Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-81210) pertaining to the
          registration of 201,794 shares of Quovadx, Inc. common stock

     6.   Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-88402) pertaining to the
          registration of 138,575 shares of Quovadx, Inc. common stock


Denver, Colorado                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP
March 26, 2003
Exhibit
10.12





 





 


July
18th, 2018


 


Abel
Avellan


 


Dear
Abel:


 


You
have been performing the duties of your position since June of 2017, and we are pleased to formalize in writing your position as Chairman
& Chief Executive Officer for AST & Science, LLC (“AST” or “the Company”).


 


Your
compensation package will consist of the following:


 


Cash
Compensation – your annual gross salary will be $23,660 and you will begin to receive this cash compensation beginning on July
27th, 2018.


 


Other
benefits – you will be eligible to participate in AST health and benefits plans.


 


We
are very excited that you arguing to continue helping us execute the vision for AST's future prospects.


 





	 	AST & Science LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
  Tom Severson
	 	By:	Tom Severson
	 	Its:	Chief Financial Officer & Operating Officer



 


The
forgoing terms and conditions are hereby accepted as of July 18, 2018


 


	Signed:	/s/
  Abel Avellan	 
	 	Abel Avellan
1940s-1950s

1960s

D-558-I Skystreak

Transonic Research Airplane

HL-10

Lifting Body Research

X-15

High-Altitude 

Hypersonic Aircraft

X-24

Lifting Body Research

D-558-II Skyrocket

Transonic Research Airplane

X-1

Rocket-Engine-Powered 

Aircraft

X-2 Starbuster

Supersonic Swept Wing

X-3 Stiletto

Supersonic Flight Research

X-4 Bantam

Semi-Tailless Aircraft

X-5

Variable Sweep Wings

X-PLANES ATArmstrong Flight Research Center

M2-F2/M2-F3

Lifting Body Research

Experimental aircraft researched and tested at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research 

Center in Edwards, California.

XF-91 

Thunderceptor

High-Speed Combat 

Interceptor

XF-92A 

Delta Wing Concept

XB-70 Valkyrie

Supersonic Strategic 

Bomber Prototype

M2-F1

Lifting Body Research

www.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
X-29

Forward Swept Wing

X-30

Advanced Technology 

Demonstrator

X-Wing

Rotor System

X-37 

Autonomous Spaceplane 

Technology Demonstrator

X-40A 

Space Maneuvering Vehicle

X-33 

Advanced Technology 

Demonstrator

X-31 

Enhanced Fighter 

Maneuverability

X-34 

Advanced Technology 

Demonstrator

X-57 Maxwell

Electric Propulsion 

Airplane

X-59

Supersonic Flight 

Research

X-66A 

Sustainable Flight 

Demonstrator

1980s-1990s

2000s

2010-2020s

X-53 

Active Aeroelastic Wing

X-45 

Unmanned Combat Air 

Vehicle

X-43A 

Hypersonic Experimental 

Vehicle

X-38 

Prototype Crew 

Return Vehicle

X-36 

Tailless Fighter Agility 

Research Aircraft

X-48

Blended Wing Body Scan here for

more information.

X-56A

Multi-Utility 

Technology Test Bed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating Partners 1992-B, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         103,922
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  486,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               600,900
<PP&E>                                         9,546,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,138,224)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,435,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,947
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,818,729
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,435,690
<SALES>                                        260,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,384
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  234,363<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,361)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,361)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,361)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income  Fund XIV,  Ltd. at March 31,  1999,  and its  statement  of
income for the three  months  then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference  to the Form 10Q of CNL Income  Fund XIV,  Ltd.  for the three  months
ended March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         763,678
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  37,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,105
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         28,122,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,776,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,323,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     39,258,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,323,553
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               916,491
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                711,295
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            711,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   711,295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund XIV,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### LYNNE MARIE MILLER v. JOHN L. FRANCIS, SR.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Aviation Upgrade Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Torbjörn B. Lundqvist, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Company.




/s/ Torbjörn B.
              LundqvistTorbjörn B. Lundqvist
              Chief Executive Officer
              February
                  23, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             755
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,279
<PP&E>                                          12,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,617
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,870)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,874
<SALES>                                          2,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,463
<CGS>                                              541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,261)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF CONOVER SCHAD.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20764 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE DOLORES OSORTO GONZALEZ, also known as Jose D

. Osorto, also known as Jose Delores Osorto, also known as Jose Dolores Osorto-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-438-1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose D olores O sorto G on z a l e z appeals the r evocation of his supervised release and r esulting 12-month sentence. H e now argues, for the first time, that his revocation is invalid because the term of s upervi s e d release originally imposed is invalid. S p ecifically , he contends that ordering deportable aliens

s u c h as h imself t o serve a t erm of supervised r elease i s unconstitution a l

. H e alternatively argues that the district c o urt failed s pecifically to pronounce at U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 7, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20764 Document: 00512434096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2013No. 12-20764

resentencing t h e s p e c i a l c o n di t i o n o f supervised release t hat he not again reenter the U n ited States i llegally and that s uch failure to pronounce a special condition orally renders the prior judgment of supervised release void. Gonzalez may n ot now challenge the validity of his underlying s e n t ence of supervised r elease on appeal from the revocation of supervised release. See U n i t e d S t a t es v. Willis , 5 63 F.3d 1 68, 170 (5th Cir. 2009) (“It is by now wel l

established tha t a d e f endant may not use the appeal of a revocation of supervised release to challenge an underlying conviction or original sentence.”); United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th C ir. 2005) (“Hinson may not

. . . use an appeal of the revocation of her supervised release to attack her original sentence directly or coll a t e rally in this proceeding.”). Consequently, the arguments G onzalez p resents are to no avail. He has f ailed t o show any error in c onnection with his revocation proceedings, a nd the d i strict court’s revocation judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-20764 Document: 00512434096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2013
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth 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.

 March 25, 2015

p0318

Order 

Clerk

March 25, 2015

150024

DEENA SHOTWELL,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 150024

COA: 314860

MTT: 00-432519

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Respondent-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 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 VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment 

concerning de facto officers. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that “a material 

question of fact may have remained regarding petitioner’s status as a de facto officer.” 

The Michigan Tax Tribunal concluded that petitioner was not a de facto officer, and its 

findings are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole 

record. Briggs Tax Service v Detroit Public Schools, 480 Mich 69, 75 (2010). In all 

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.