alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Gordon L. Wiltse, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lions Petroleum, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, 
and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer and 
have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be 
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the 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 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter 
in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 small 
business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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: February 19, 2007 /s/ Gordon L. Wiltse Gordon L. Wiltse Principal Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BROWGLEY RUSSELL, and )

JIMMY BURRIS, )

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) Case No. 20-cv-420

v. ) 

 ) Judge LaShonda A. Hunt

 )

 ) Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain

 ) 

CITY OF CHICAGO, )

 )

Defendant. )

DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Defendant City of Chicago (“the City”), by and through its attorney, the Office of the 

Corporation Counsel, hereby moves for an extension of time to file a Joint Status Report (“JSR”) 

pursuant to the Court’s Order dated April 10, 2024 (Dkt. No. 260).

1. In the Parties’ status report dated April 5, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that 

Plaintiffs intend to disclose an expert witness and counsel of the City indicated that the City 

intends to issue expert discovery and take the deposition of Plaintiffs’ expert. Dkt. No. 259. 

2. On April 10, 2024, this Court ordered the Parties to submit a JSR by April 19, 

2024 with the Parties’ proposed expert discovery schedule. Dkt. No. 260. 

3. On April 19, 2024, having not received any correspondence from Plaintiffs’ 

counsel regarding the JSR, counsel for the City prepared a draft and sent it to Plaintiffs’ counsel 

at 3:03 p.m. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded with edits at 11:58 p.m. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00420 Document #: 261 Filed: 04/21/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4261
4. Counsel for the City reviewed Plaintiffs’ counsels’ edits and responded on April 

21, 2024 at 3:36 p.m. Counsel for the City has not received a response as of the filing of this 

motion.

5. Accordingly, the City respectfully requests an extension of time until April 22, 

2024 for the Parties to finalize and file their JSR. 

WHEREFORE, the City requests that this Court extend the deadline for the Parties to file 

their joint status report to April 22, 2024. 

Dated: April 21, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

Office of the Corporation Counsel,

By: /s/ Derek R. Kuhn 

Derek R. Kuhn

Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel 

City of Chicago Department of Law

Employment Litigation Division 

2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 640

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 744-0898

Derek.kuhn@cityofchicago.org

Case: 1:20-cv-00420 Document #: 261 Filed: 04/21/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4262
Exhibit 10.1



Exhibit 10.1


	

	

DATA last updated on May 26, 2004

	 
	
Tenure Number 408850

	 	 
	
Tenure Type
	
FOUR POST CLAIM 

	
Old Tenure Number
	
408850 

	
Tag Number
	
215552 

	
Claim Name
	
JAMES GANG 

	
Tenure Status
	
GOOD STANDING 2005.03.01

	
Mining Division
	
GREENWOOD 

	
Primary Map
	
082E015 

	
Secondary Maps
	 
	
Area
	
12 UNITS

	
Owner(s)
	
118876 
	
MORGAN, ROBERT WAYNE 
	
100% 

	
Locator
	
109141 
	
GALLISSANT, GERARD

	
Commenced
	
2004.03.01 17:09 

	
Completed
	
2004.03.01 17:22 

	
Issue Date
	
2004.03.01

	
Work Recorded To
	
2005.03.01

	
Posts not Placed
	
13

	
Plotted On Map
	
NO

	 
	
Your use of this site is subject to this disclaimer.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00454

- CV

In the Matter of L.F.R. §

§

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

o f Tarrant County (323

- 97317JD

12 )

May 2, 2013

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s disposit ion order . It is ordered that the

disposition order of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the

trial court for a new disposition hearing

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Sue Wal ker
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Flint Wild","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/flint-wildnasa-gov\/","title":"What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eqI7BMDSIh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-kids-and-students\/what-was-the-apollo-program-grades-5-8\/\">What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-kids-and-students\/what-was-the-apollo-program-grades-5-8\/embed\/#?secret=eqI7BMDSIh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"eqI7BMDSIh\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/apollo1_0.jpg?w=350","thumbnail_width":350,"thumbnail_height":362}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         743,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,806,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,214,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,764,550
<PP&E>                                       1,123,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,888,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,614,305
<BONDS>                                        260,852
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,964,651
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,888,415
<SALES>                                     19,603,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,603,791
<CGS>                                       17,532,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,581,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (83,833)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 91,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,982
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,169
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 EASTERN DIVISION

Libertarian Party of Illinois, et al., ) Case No.: 20-cv-2112 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr., 

 ) Presiding Judge 

 vs. ) 

 ) Hon. Jeffrey Cummings, 

 ) Magistrate Judge 

J.B. Pritzker, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Libertarian Party of Illinois, Illinois Green Party, David F. 

Black, Sheldon Schafer, Richard J. Whitney, William Redpath, Bennett W. Morris, Marcus 

Throneburg, and David Gill ( “Plaintiffs”), counsel for the Plaintiffs, and Defendants, JB 

Pritzker, Governor of Illinois in his official capacity (the “Governor”); and William J. Cadigan, 

Katherine S. O’Brien, Laura K. Donahue, Cassandra B. Watson, William R. Haine, Ian K. 

Linnabary, Charles W. Scholz, and William McGuffage, Board Members of the Illinois State 

Board of Elections in their official capacity (“Defendants”); by their attorney, Kwame Raoul, 

Attorney General of Illinois, and hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this case with prejudice. 

Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree as follows: 

 1. This lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to reinstate. 

 2. Each party shall bear their own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 84 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:994
AGREED: 

/s/ Oliver B. Hall /s/ Sarah H. Newman_(w/permission)__ 

Oliver Hall Sarah H. Newman 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Assistant Attorney General 

Center for Competitive Democracy Attorney for Defendants 

P.O. Box 21090 100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20009 Chicago, Illinois 60601 

202-248-9294 (312) 814-3000 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on March 2, 2021, the foregoing document was filed using the 

Court’s CM/ECF system, which will effect service upon all parties of record. 

 /s/ Oliver B. Hall 

 Oliver B. Hall 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 84 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:995
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TAURUS DOUGLAS PHILLIPS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-95-786, CA-97-1837-4-22)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taurus Douglas Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Phillips, Nos. CR-95-786; CA-97-1837-4-22

(D.S.C. Apr. 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
----

----

| 1. | the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2010 (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/ Stewart Wallis         |
|   | Stewart WallisChief Executive Officer |

----

----
# **Exhibit 23.1**

 

## **Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121051) pertaining to the EquityIncentive Plan of Gramercy Capital Corp. of our report dated January 19, 2005except for Note 19, as to which the date is February 24, 2005, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of Gramercy Capital Corp. includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the period from April 12, 2004 (formation)through December 31, 2004.

 

 
| /s/ Ernst & Young  LLP |
|----------------------------|
| New York, New York         |
| March 15, 2005             |

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Moon to Mars Architecture","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vxI1Jyaf4N\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/ep-297-moon-to-mars-architecture\/\">Moon to Mars Architecture<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/ep-297-moon-to-mars-architecture\/embed\/#?secret=vxI1Jyaf4N\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Moon to Mars Architecture” — NASA\" data-secret=\"vxI1Jyaf4N\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/bg_0.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":375}
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00306

- CV

Carolyn Butler

v.

David Whitten, M.D., Jon Beazley,

M.D., and Joseph Delprincipe, M.D. §

§

§

§ From the 96th District Court o f

Tarrant County (096

- 264057

- 13 )

October 17, 2013

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dism isse d for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### John Amsbro *v.*Thos. Byrne’s Admr.

Executors and Administrators — Suit to Collect Debts Owing Estate — Set-Off — Affidavit and Demand Not Necessary.

When the personal representative lias commenced the litigation, a claim against the intestate can be pleaded by way of set-off or counterclaim as a defense to the action without the affidavit and demand prescribed by the civil code.

APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

October 13, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This court decided in the case of *Miller & Co. v. Watkins,*4 *Bush*642, that where the personal representative has commenced the litigation, a claim against the intestate could be pleaded by way of set-off or counter-claim as a defense to the action without the affidavits and demand prescribed in *Sec.*473 of the *Civil Code,*and according to the doctrine of that case it was erroneous to dismiss the appellant’s set-off.

But even if the affidavits and demand were necessary to enable appellee to avail himself of the want of them, he should have filed an affidavit and had a rule against .the appellant to show cause why his set-off should .be dismissed after having withdrawn his reply.

*Thomas v. Thomas’ Executor,*15 *B. Mon.*178.

The judgment must therefore be *reversed,*and the cause re-*192ma-nded with directions to overrule the motion to dismiss appellant’s set-off, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Belden & Cleaver, for appellant.*

*Russell & Averitt, for appellee.*
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity asindicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.   May 9, 2005 */s/Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr.*   Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr. Chief Executive Officer of FelCor LodgingTrust Incorporated, as general partner ofFelCor Lodging Limited Partnership
9792.

#### Littlefield *v.*The State.

Decided November 1, 1918.

Indictment for sale of intoxicating liquor; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. April 10, 1918.

*W. E. Mann, Glenn & House,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

Harwell, J.

1. The defendant’s motion for a continuance on account of absent witnesses failing to conform to the statutory requirements (Penal Code (1910), § 987; Civil Code, § 5715), the court did not err in overruling the motion.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. See, in this connection, *Littlefield*v. *State*(case No. 9793), ante, 782.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodmorth, J., concur.*