alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Demorest,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MOCON, Inc.; 

 

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

                         a)    Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

 

                         b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

 

                         c)    Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

 

                         a)    All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

                         b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 30, 2007
| /s/ Robert L. Demorest                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Demorest                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FRESH FOODS,
INC.'S 1999 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-06-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-06-1999
<CASH>                                       1,664,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,781,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                   199,943
<INVENTORY>                                 30,430,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,492,418
<PP&E>                                     105,191,311
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,191,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             216,989,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,660,618
<BONDS>                                    146,939,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,807,049
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,344,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               216,989,023
<SALES>                                    258,282,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           258,282,146
<CGS>                                      137,946,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              185,643,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,216,256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               699,911
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,400,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,207,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,712,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,495,192
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (64,335)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,430,857
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40


</TABLE>
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 415

- CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 25, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a “petition for writ of

prohibition/mandamus,” requesting that his competency hearing be held before a district court.

The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitl ed to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009

- CR

- 6566 , styled State of Te xas v. Jason Miears , pending in

the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
## TREATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS
**AUSTIN. TICXAS**  **78711**

October 14, 1977

Honorable Clayton T. Garrison Opinion No. H-1072 Executive Director Texas Parks &Wildlife Department Re: Taking of shrimp 4200 Smith School Road within onemile of a Austin, Texas 70744 city. Dear Mr. Garrison: You have requested our opinion regarding the use of shrimp trawls under certain provisions of the Parks and Wildlife Code., Section 136.043 of the Code states, in pertinent part: \

(a) No person may attempt to take any fish, shrimp, green turtle, loggerhead, or terrapin by the use of a seine, drag, fyke, setnet, trammel net, trap, dam, or weir from abay or other navigable water inChambers County within onemile of the limits of a city. Sections 184.023, 201.012 and 335,023make the same provisions with respect toGalveston, Harris and Victoria counties, respectively. Although, prior to 1973, there was some question as towhether the predecessor statute of these regulations, article 947 of the former Penal Code, had been superseded by article 4075b, V.T.C.S., theTexas Shrimp Conservation Act, any doubt was resolved by the re-enactment of article 947 in the 63rd Legislature, Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 220, at 515. SeeAttorney General Opinion H-112 (1973). In 1975, theseprovisions of article 947,now restricted in application to Chambers, Galveston, Harris andVictoria counties, were transferred to the Parks andWildlife Code. The statutes under consideration do not specifically prohibit the taking of shrimp bymeans of a trawl, which has been defined as

**P. 4593** Honorable Clayton T. Garrison -Page 2 (H-1072)

a dragnet; specifically, a large conical net with adevice for keeping itsmouth open that is dragged along the seabottom. . . . Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2433 (1961).~However, the statutes do prohibit the use of adrag, the applicable definition ofwhich is

a device (asa . . .net or scoop) for dragging under water along thebottom or through thewater below the surface to . . . obtain, or recover objects. Id.at 684. A dragnet is "anet that is specially designed to bedrawn along thebottom of abody ofwater." Id. at 684. It would thus appear that theword "drag" isof broZ& meaning than "dragnet" or "trawl"; in our view the latter terms would be held to bewithin the definition of "drag." Accordingly, it is our opinion that the statutes render itunlawful to take shrimp from any water in.Chambers, Galveston, Harris andVictoria Counties within onemile of a city by use of a trawl as defined above. SUMMARY Under sections 136.043, 184.023, 201.012 and 335.023 of the Parks andWildlife Code, it isunlawful to take shrimp from any water inChambers, Galveston, Harris andVictoria Counties, within onemile of a city, by use of a trawl. Very truly yours,

Assistant

Opinion Committee jst

p. 4594
#### Kirsty Anne MAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POKOIK RACING STABLES, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Lion Farm, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-2553.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2001.

Decided May 15, 2001.

Richard Carl Detwiler, Callison, Tighe & Robinson, L.L.P., Columbia, SC. Mark S. Barrow, William R. Calhoun, Jr., Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kirsty Anne May appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendant and denying her motion for reconsideration in her personal injury action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See May v. Pokoik Racing Stables, Inc.,*No. CA-00-170-3-19 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 19, 2000; entered Oct. 23, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *120and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Elder and Senior Judge Willis 

BARBER & ROSS COMPANY AND 

 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0004-06-4 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 2, 2006 

MIRSAD KAJGANIC 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Roger L. Williams; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (Metin A. Cay; Swiger & Cay, on brief), for appellee. 

 Barber & Ross Company and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that (1) Mirsad Kajganic sustained a compensable injury by accident on 

July 8, 2003; and (2) his claim was not barred by his failure to follow medical restrictions. We 

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Kajganic v. Barber & Ross Co., et al., VWC File No. 215-03-29 (Dec. 7, 2005). We dispense 

with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
#### Jno. F. ShanicKlin *v.*Pitkin Weird et al.

Contracts — Payment of Another’s Debts.

Where, under an arrangement between a debtor and a third person, the latter undertook to pay off the former’s indebtedness, the ■fact that the third person paid off some debts created after the agreement, does not charge him with the payment of other debts created since the agreement,

APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

March 5, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This contract, made between Shanklin and Wallace for the land of the wife of the latter, created no such obligations on the part of Shanklin to pay the creditors of Wallace, that could not at any time have been rescinded by the two without the consent of any creditor that Wallace might have had. The consideration itself could have been changed and the money paid directly to Wallace, instead of his creditors. Under this contract, however, Shanklin proceeded to pay off the creditors so- far as they were ascertained, and afterwards made a full and complete settlement with his grantor, and' took a receipt evidencing that fact. A list of the creditors paid is exhibited, showing that Shanklin acted in the utmost good faith in the execution of his agreement. That he paid off debts created after the agreement, is no- reason for charging him with the payment of the claims, asserted by the appellees. This he had the right to do, by the consent of Wallace, to- the exclusion of any existing creditor.

Their creditors existing at the time, were not asserting any claim against Shanklin; and so far as the record shows, he was ignorant *553of the existence of any of these claim's, except perhaps one, until after he had settled with Wallace and paid to him the balance due on the settlement. He was entitled to the discount on the money advanced by him, and the parol proof shows that it was not a cash sale. This was agreed to by Wallace, and' the discount made at his instance, not for his own benefit, but that the money might at once be obtained in order to satisfy the. demands of creditors. If held as trustee, he would also be entitled to compensation for his services, and this with the discount would liquidate any balance against him. These creditors, by a proceeding in equity, with such allegations as would have given the chancellor the right to have distributed the fund between Wallace’s creditors, could have prevented the parties to the contract fromi applying the proceeds of sale in any other way; but as the case is presented, the appellant has acted in the best of faith, and ought not to be responsible for the laches of those who are now seeking to collect their debts.

*A. H. Field, for appellant.*

*Lee, Rodman, R. H. Field, for appellees.*

The judgment of the court below is reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition as against Shanklin. So far as the rights of Mrs. Wallace are concerned, this court can express no opinion. Neither Mrs. Wallace nor the appellees are complaining of any error in this branch of the case.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 5, 2007 (the Report) of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marguerite N. Duffy, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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:August 3, 2007
        /s/ Marguerite N. Duffy


Marguerite N. Duffy

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

By:	 /s/ James W. Bernau
Name: James W. Bernau
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
#### Lucien D. Coman, plaintiff and respondent, *vs.*William H. Storm, defendant and appellant.

It was decided in this, case that a person charged in execu-. tion, though allowed to go upon the limits, is a prisoner, within the statute,authorizing prisoners to apply for discharge. ’

*706Before Bosworth, Ch. J. and White and Monell, JJ.

Heard November 7th, 1863 ;

decided November 14th, 1863.

See the point decided, stated in the index to this volume, under the title, *“*Imprisoned Debtors.”

See the appeal from an order, with the opinion of the court by Boswobth, Oh. J. reported at length in 26 *How. Pr.*84.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2023

NO. 03-23-00028-CR

Lamar Lovett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order denying post-conviction DNA testing entered by the trial court.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order denying postconviction DNA testing. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, James W. Bernau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, Incorporated;

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 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 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 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 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: Aug 14, 2006
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        232,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,835
<CGS>                                          155,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               223,372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (162,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (162,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (162,839)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>