alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1 – Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxleyact of 2002
I, Lewis S. Albert, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TarponCoast Bancorp, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s)and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesigned or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
14

 

small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: October 25, 2004 /s/ Lewis S. Albert
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 148 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 14, 1997.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and that they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Berry.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Rodriguez.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 Quarterly Report of Kid Castle
      Educational Corporation, a Florida Corporation (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-Q
      for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission , each of the undersigned hereby certify that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.




DATE:
                November 13, 2008
            BY:
            /s/
                Min-Tan YangMIN
                TAN YANGCHIEF
                EXECUTIVE OFFICER




DATE:
                November 13, 2008
            BY:
            /s/
                Suang-Yi PaiSUANG-YI
                PAICHIEF
                FINANCIAL OFFICER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

ABC Corporation

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02640

Honorable Harry D.

Leinenweber

The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A"

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, May 4, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: Plaintiff's motions

[10, 14, 19] are granted. Mailed notice(maf)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02640 Document #: 25 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:6259
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFPAYPHONE WIND DOWN CORPORATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, MICHAEL H. McCLELLAN, am the Chief FinancialOfficer of Payphone Wind Down Corporation (the “Company”).

 

This certification is being furnished pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Company’sAnnual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the“Report”).

 

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(a)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:  October 9, 2007 |                                            |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                            |
|                   |                                            |
|                   | /s/ Michael H. McClellan                        |   |
|                   | Michael  H. McClellan *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Payphone Wind Down Corporation andwill be retained by Payphone Wind Down Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00544-CR

IN RE Shawn BEAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 4, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On August 12, 2013, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining of 

the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions pending in his criminal proceeding. This 

court issued an opinion on August 21, 2013 denying relator’s mandamus petition on the basis that 

a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, meaning the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions when relator is represented by 

appointed counsel.

2 On August 26, 2013, relator filed a supplemental petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court complaining of the district clerk’s failure to respond or take action with 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 188088, styled The State of Texas v. Shawn Bean, pending in the 437th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.

2 In re Shawn Bean, No. 04-13-00544-CR, 2013 WL 4501334 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2013, orig. 

proceeding).

 
04-13-00544-CR

respect to relator’s filing of an affidavit of indigency. For the following reasons, we dismiss

relator’s supplemental petition for writ of mandamus due to a lack of jurisdiction.

In the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests an order directing the 

district clerk to “dispose of” relator’s pauper’s oath. However, this court does not have jurisdiction

to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus 

against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as 

necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 

2004). In this instance, we conclude the requested writ is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
Opinion issued August 24, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00232-CR

NO. 01-22-00233-CR

NO. 01-22-00234-CR

———————————

EX PARTE MATTHEW JAMES LEACHMAN, Appellant

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 1756174, 1756176, and 1756173

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Matthew James Leachman challenges the trial court’s denial of his 

applications for writ of habeas corpus related to bail in three underlying cases. The 

State filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal as moot on the ground that Leachman 
2

posted bail and is no longer incarcerated. Leachman originally opposed the 

dismissal, but subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal as moot on the 

ground he entered a plea of nolo contendere in one of the three involved cases, and 

the State moved for dismissal of the other two cases. 

Leachman states in his Motion that the trial court accepted the plea bargain 

recommendation and rendered the agreed-upon sentence in Cause Number 0786224, 

and dismissed the charges in Cause Numbers 1520246 and 1520247.1 He explains 

he has been “freed from restraint in the underlying cause numbers,” “released from 

the trial court’s supervision,” and thus “[t]here is nothing left to litigate on the issue 

of bail, which moots this appeal.” 

We grant Leachman’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). We deny all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

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

1 The underlying cases were pending originally in the 248th District Court of Harris

County, Texas. Following appeal, the cases were transferred from that court to the 

262nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.
Exhibit 13     CERTIFICATION

I, Tor Olav Tr0im,  Director and  President and Kate  Blankenship,  Director and
Secretary  of CalPetro  Tankers  (Bahamas I) Limited (the  "Company"),  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, that:

1. The Annual  Report on Form 20-F of the  Company for the annual  period  ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m);  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/ Tor Olav Tr0im
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Tor Olav Tr0im
                                                    Director and President


                                                    /s/ Kate Blankenship
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Kate Blankenship
                                                    Director and Secretary

                                                    Date:  June 30, 2006

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.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 18

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the reduction

of section 602(b)(1) suballocations to reflect floor amendments to general

appropriation bills, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. ROYCE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require the reduction of section 602(b)(1) suballocations

to reflect floor amendments to general appropriation

bills, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That (a) clause 4(a) of rule XI of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at

3 the end the following new subparagraph:

4 ‘‘(4)(A) Upon the engrossment in the House of any

5 general appropriation bill (or resolution making continu6 ing appropriations (if applicable)), the chairman of the

7 Committee on Appropriations shall—
2

HRES 18 IH

1 ‘‘(i) reduce the suballocation of new budget au2 thority to the appropriate subcommittee of that com3 mittee made under section 602(b)(1) of the Congres4 sional Budget Act of 1974 by the net amount of re5 ductions in new budget authority resulting from

6 amendments agreed to by the House to that bill, and

7 ‘‘(ii) reduce the suballocation of outlays made

8 under section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget

9 Act of 1974 to the appropriate subcommittee of that

10 committee by the net amount of reductions in out11 lays resulting from amendments agreed to by the

12 House to that bill,

13 and promptly report those revisions to the House.

14 ‘‘(B) The reductions in suballocations made under

15 subdivision (A) may not be reallocated by the Committee

16 on Appropriations to any other subcommittee.

17 ‘‘(C) In the House of Representatives, the revised

18 suballocations made under subdivision (A) shall be deemed

19 to be suballocations made under section 602(b)(1) of the

20 Congressional Budget Act of 1974.’’.

21 (b) Clause 4(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the House

22 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the

23 following new sentence: ‘‘Upon the reporting of revised
3

HRES 18 IH

1 suballocations to the House by the Committee on Appro2 priations under paragraph (a), the chairman of the Com3 mittee on the Budget shall make appropriate revisions in

4 the allocations to the Committee on Appropriations to re5 flect the revised suballocations and report those revisions

6 to the House. In the House of Representatives, those re7 vised allocations shall be deemed to be allocations made

8 under section 602(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act

9 of 1974.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 781 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 781

To ensure that crop losses resulting from plant viruses and other plant 
    diseases are covered by crop insurance and the noninsured crop 
  assistance program and that agricultural producers who suffer such 
                losses are eligible for emergency loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                    to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that crop losses resulting from plant viruses and other plant 
    diseases are covered by crop insurance and the noninsured crop 
  assistance program and that agricultural producers who suffer such 
                losses are eligible for emergency loans.

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

SECTION 1. COVERAGE FOR CROP LOSSES FROM PLANT DISEASE UNDER CROP 
              INSURANCE AND NONINSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Crop Insurance Program.--Section 508 of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``plant disease,'' 
        after ``flood,''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``plant disease,'' 
        after ``flood,''.
    (b) Noninsured Crop Assistance Program.--Section 196(a)(3) of the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
7333(a)(3)) is amended by inserting ``plant disease,'' after 
``flood,''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO MAKE EMERGENCY DISASTER LOANS FOR FARMING 
              OPERATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY A PLANT DISEASE.

    Section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
(7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) is amended by inserting ``or plant disease'' after 
``natural disaster'' each place such term appears.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICEROR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connectionwith the accompanying Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. for the threemonths  ended March 31, 2004, I, AndrewA. Wiederhorn, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) such Form10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.

 

This writtenstatement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit to such Form 10-Q.

 
| May 12, 2004 |                                  | /s/  Andrew A. Wiederhorn |   |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
| Date         | Andrew A.  Wiederhorn                 |
|         | Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by § 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No.DA 20-0594 TOWN OF EKALAKA

Plaintiff/Appellee,
v. EKALAKA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT,INC.

Defendant/Appellant. ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING OPENING BRIEF

UPON REVIEW ofthe Motion and good cause appearing therein the time for the Appellant's Opening Brief is extended to May 15',2021. DATED this day of 2021.

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2021

03/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0594
#### John Peak et al v. Mary Hayden et al.

Adverse Possession — Conflicting Claim of Title — Best Possession Prevails.

Where neither- litigant shows documentary evidence of title derived from the government, a constructive possession will prevail over a claimant, who had not the property under enclosure.

APPEAL EROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 30, 1870.

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Eobertson :

In this suit of equity by the appellants vs. the appellees for trespass on land and a *quietus*as to title, neither party proved any documentary title derived from the Commonwealth, and there is some difficulty in a judicial determination of the possessory right.

The evasiveness of the answer of the appellees to the petition of the appellants and some admitted and established facts conduce strongly to the conclusion that the appellees have not had such possession, actual or constructive, of the land in controversy as to give them .the right of possession. The appellants claim under Perciful, the appellees under Simpson, as owners of different tracts not conflicting in boundary.

It appears that Walker’s line and one line of Simpson’s patent are coincident, and that the appellees derive all their title from Walker, who claimed under Simpson.

The land in contest is not embraced by Simpson’s line, but is included in the boundary sold by Perciful to the ancestor of the appellants, which calls for Walker’s line as coincident with Simpson’s.

And it is quite clear that neither Walker nor any person holding under him ever enclosed or actually occupied the land in contest, all of whiqh lies beyond Simpson’s line. And if he or any of them misconceed the local line as now indisputably established as not interfering with the claim of the appellants, their possession of other land embraced by Simpson’s patent, did not give them constructive possession of any of the land beyond that time *249There was no apparent or presumable intention to extend the possession beyond Simpson’s line. The appellees have, therefore, failed to show a possessory title.

*Walker, Gofer, for appellant.*

*Kmcheloe & Lewis, for appellee. .*

On the contrary, the appellants have shown a constructive possession of the land in contest for years. Their possessory right appears, therefore, superior to that claimed by the appellees, and that is sufficient for this case, and ought to have ruled the decision of the circuit court, which nevertheless was against the appellants.

Daniel Iiaydon, under whom the appellees claim, recognized and admitted the line of Simpson and Walker as now established in this case. There could have been no constructive possession beyond that line so as to include the land now in controversy.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a proper judgment in favor of the appellants for such damages as shall be assessed — for the alleged intrusion of their rightful possession.