alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1   CERTIFICATION  I, John Swallow, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 reasonable 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 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: January 16, 2007.  /s/ John Swallow _______________________ John Swallow (CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
#### *Fred*K. Hank *v.*Hiram Hank.

Limitation — Time When Statute Begins to Run — Allegation of Petition.

The allegation of the petition as to the date of the contract will be regarded as the correct date in considering the question of limitation.

APPEAL PROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 27, 1870.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

This was a suit in equity by the appellee, Frederick Hank, against the heirs of his deceased son, Joseph Hank, to recover the possession of a tract of land, and for an account of rents and a judgment for an alleged balance thereof. The petition setting forth in substance that in or about the year 1844, the plaintiff being indebted to James Terrill in about $300, secured by a *480mortgage on the land, Joseph Hank paid the debt, and to reimburse him, the plaintiff made a parol agreement, giving up the land to him to be used until' the rents would repay the amount advanced, Joseph Hank agreeing to improve the land and support the plaintiff and he was to retain the possession of the land until fully reimbursed the amount of the debt, interest and costs, and, although long since so repaid, he and his heirs have continued in the possession of the land.

*Carter, Rodman, Disfaman, for appellants.*

The defendant by their answer denied the right of the plaintiff either to be restored to the possession or to have an account of rents as imported by the averments of the petition; but admitting the contract to have been in parol, they alleged that in its terms it was an unconditiinal sale to Joseph Hank of the land for the amount paid to discharge the debt and mortgage of Terrell, and that the possession of Joseph Hank from the time it was acquired, was in his own right and adverse to any claim or right of the plaintiff and they pleaded the statute of limitations as a bar to the action.

Under an interlocutory order of the court, a commissioner reported an account showing a balance in favor of the plaintiff of $392, after setting off the amount of Joseph Hank’s payments to Terrell, and improvements made by him on the land, and thereupon the court rendered a judgment for the recovery of the land, and said sum of $392, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The terms of the contract and character of the possession are, we think, sufficiently proved as alleged by the defendants; and, though the evidence conduces to show that the arrangement was of later date than 1844, as that is the date of the contract alleged by the plaintiff himself, we must regard it as the correct date inconsidering the question of limitation; and twenty-two years or near that time having elapsed when this suit was brought, it results from the adverse character of the possession that the statutory bar had become complete when the suit was commenced. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
#### Charles CANSINO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-73858.

IRS No. 12248-02L.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*591Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 15, 2004.

Charles Cansino, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Charles S. Casazza, Emily Ann Parker, Acting Chief Counsel, Carol A. Barthel, Eileen J. O’Connor, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before GOODWIN, ALARCÓN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Charles Cansino appeals pro se the Tax Court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and ruling that the collection action against Cansino may proceed. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo whether the Tax Court had subject matter jurisdiction. *Crawford v. Comm’r,*266 F.3d 1120, 1123 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam). We also review de novo summary judgment, *Hansen v. United States,*7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly exercised jurisdiction over Cansino’s case because it had jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1); *see also*26 CFR § 301.6330-l(f)(2)(Q-F3). We are not persuaded by Cansino’s contention that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction merely because he framed his claims as “procedural” errors.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment on the issue whether the IRS met the notice requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6303(a) because Cansino admitted that he received notices of intent to levy. See *Hughes v. United States,*953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6489

DAVID HARRISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-03-1423-8-26BI) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro
Distributing, Inc. (the Company), that to his knowledge:



(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                       
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)  
|                     |  | President and Director
|                     | 
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero   
|                     |  | (Edward Escudero)     
|                     |  | Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.0


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

In connection with the annual report of Cord Blood America, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew
L. Schissler, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), of the
Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

           (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.

                                             Date:    April 28, 2005
                                                      --------------

                                             /s/ Matthew L. Schissler
                                             -----------------------------------

                                             Matthew L. Schissler
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)
H. Res. 435

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 19, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year

1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined

to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on National Security. After general debate the

Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further
2

•HRES 435 EH

consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to

subsequent order of the House.

Attest:

Clerk.
9369.

#### Woodall *et al. v.*Harris, governor.

Decided March 14, 1918.

Forfeiture of recognizance; from Pike superior court—Judge Searcy. October 12, 1917.

*Redding & Lester,*for plaintiffs in" error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

This was a rule nisi for the forfeiture of a bond given in a criminal case. The only error assigned in the bill of exceptions is upon the judgment of the court sustaining a demurrer filed - to the answer of the sureties upon the bond. It does not appear, either from the bill of exceptions or the record, that any final judgment was ever rendered. The bill of exceptions therefore can not be maintained. *Byrd*v. *Brown,*17 *Ga. App.*422 (87 S. E. 607); *Vaughn*V. *Milner,*121 *Ga.*436 (49 S. E. 287)*; United Glass Go.*v. *McConnell,*110 *Ga.*616 (36 S. E. 58); *Harrell*v. *Tift,*70 *Ga.*730; *Newberry*v. *Tenant,*121 *Ga.*561 (49 S. E. 621); *Hendricks*v. *Reid,*125 *Ga.*775 (54 S. E. 747); *Piedmont Co.*v. *Kelley,*125 *Ga.*759 (54 S. E. 748); *Simmons*v. *Scarborough,*129 *Ga.*125 (58 S. E. 1037); *Lyndon*v. *Georgia Ry.*&c. *Co.,*129 *Ga.*353 (58 S. E. 1047) ; *Mertins*v. *Pritchard,*135 *Ga.*643 (70 S. E. 328). The ruling in *Haskins*v. *Bank,*100 *Ga.*216 (27 S. E. 985), cited by plaintiff in error, that “it is not essential to the legal completeness of a bill of exceptions,' sued out in due time and assigning error upon an order striking a plea, that it should contain an exception to the final judgment in the plaintiff’s favor,” is contrary to the earlier adjudication in *Harrell*v. *Tift,*supra, and was practically overruled in *Kibben*v. *Coastwise Dredging Co.,*120 *Ga.*899 (48 S. E. 330), and in *Montgomery*v. *Reynolds,*124 *Ga.*1053 (53 S. E. 512). Moreover, in the *Haskins*case it appeared that a final judgment therein had been rendered.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
#### Binganan *v.*State.

Opinion delivered October 28, 1929.

*267
      *John E. Tatum,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Pat Mehaffy,*Assistant, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The Attorney General has properly confessed error on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for forg'ery, and uttering a forged instrument. The facts bring the case squarely within the principles decided in *Harrison*v. *State,*72 Ark. 117, 78 S. W. 763, and *State*v. *Adcox,*171 Ark. 510, 286 S. W. 880. The instrument was not forged, but was simply a check drawn by the defendant on a bank by a name by which he was commonly known. Under the' common law and under the statutes defining forgery, as at common law, the genuine making of an instrument for the purpose of defrauding does not constitute forgery.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/14/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:88
Exhibit 99.2

** **

** **

** **

**Independent Accountant’s Report**

** **

** **

Structured Products Corp., as Depositor

388 Greenwich Street

New York, New York 10013

 

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee

Corporate Trust Department

100 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005

 

Re:       CorTS Trust III for Verizon Global Funding Notes (the “Trust”)         

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We have examined management’s assertions that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as of December 15, 2000, as supplemented by the CorTS Trust III for Verizon Global Funding Notes Series Supplement, dated as of April 26, 2004 (together, the “Trust Agreement”), during the period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Annual Report”).  Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertions based on our examination.

 

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and management’s assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

 

/s/ Aston Bell CPA

 

New York, New York

March 17, 2010

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 11

NB CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(in thousand of US dollars)

|                               | Three-month period
ended
March 31, 2003 | Three-month period
ended
March 31, 2002
|------------------------------ | --------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|
|Net income                     |                                         | $9,197                                 
|Deduct: Senior preferred stock |                                        
|and series A preferred         |                                        
|stock dividends                |                                         | 6,267                                  
|                               |                                         |                                        
|
|                               | (A)                                     | $2,930                                 
|
|Common share outstanding       | (B)                                     | 100                                    
|
|Earning per share              | (A/B)                                   | $     29                               

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v.

Christian Rea (1) 

Case Number: 20 CR 316-1

Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz 

ORDER

Initial appearance proceedings held on 06/25/2020. Defendant appears in response to arrest on 

06/25/2020. By agreement and consent of all the parties and pursuant to the CARES Act, all 

parties appear by teleconference. Defendant informed of his rights. Attorney Timothy R. Roellig 

appears as retained counsel for defendant. Defendant informed of the charges against him as well 

as of the possible sentence/fine if convicted of those charges. The Government’s oral motion for 

pretrial detention is entered and continued. Detention hearing set for 06/26/2020 at 3:00 p.m. via 

teleconference at which time, defendant should be prepared to inform the Court as to his position 

on a preliminary examination hearing. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to 

listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (888) 273-3658 and the access code is 2217918. 

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against 

photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these 

prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, 

restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions 

deemed necessary by the Court. Defendant is hereby remanded into the custody of the United 

States Marshals Service and shall remain in custody until further order of the Court. 

(00:20)

Date: 06/25/2020

Beth W. Jantz 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:20-cr-00316 Document #: 2 Filed: 06/25/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:15