alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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: August 13, 2004
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
April 27, 1988

No. 87-6823 (A-817).

#### Smith *v.*North Carolina.

Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Halifax County, N. C. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, *Gregg*v. *Georgia,*428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD EUGENE GARDNER, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0281-CG-C

)

COUNTY OF BALDWIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant 

to he issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment (Docs. 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 48) be GRANTED, in part, and 

DENIED, in part, to the extent that plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and 

punitive damages be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(e), the claim for injunctive relief be dismissed as MOOT, and the claims 

against defendant Baldwin County be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous, and 

that defendants’ affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies 

be DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this action proceed with respect to 

plaintiff’s claims for nominal damages.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00281-CG-C Document 97 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHAN CURTIS, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0379-CG-M

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 12-00287-CG-M

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor of 

Respondent, the United States of America, and against Petitioner, Nathan Curtis.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00287-CG-M Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1




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




In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Life Energy & Technology  Holdings,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Dr Christopher McCormack,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.







By:/s/Dr Christopher McCormack
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)

January 15, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Odies M. COLE, Jr., Appellant.

No. 00-3260.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 14, 2001.

Filed June 1, 2001.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Odies M. Cole, Jr. (Cole) appeals the district court’s2 admission of his confession and a statement by the victim into evidence. Cole also claims that the government produced insufficient evidence to support the verdict. In a separate pro se brief, Cole makes several additional allegations, which include grand juror misconduct, a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the commerce clause, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Phelps,*168 F.3d 1048, 1054 (8th Cir.1999). Furthermore, Cole’s conviction must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. *See United States v. Sandifer,*188 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir.1999) (the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and reversing only if the jury must have had a reasonable doubt concerning one of the essential elements of the crime.) Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court’s admission of the confession and statement of the victim into evidence was not an abuse of discretion. We also conclude that substantial evidence did exist to support the conviction.

As for the separate pro se brief, we conclude that Cole’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. *See United States v. Martin,*59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995). The remaining claims of Cole’s pro se brief are dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, without further discussion, we affirm Cole’s conviction. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
10427.

#### EAST ATLANTA BANK *v.*WARREN *et al.*

Ordinarily the failure to z-eeord a *mortgage, given to*secure the paymezzt of a note, will not release the surety ozz the note unless the mortgage and the note were executed contemporaneously. However, under the facts of the instant case, the failure to record the mortgage given to secuz'e the payment of the debt evidenced by the note sued upon released the surety, although the note and the mortgage were not given contemporaneously.

Decided July 22, 1919.

Complaint; from DeKalb superior court—Judge Smith. February 14, *1919.*

*Burress & Dillard,*for plaintiff.

*F. A. Quillian, Alonzo Field,*for defendant.

Broyles, P. J.

The note sued upon was given as a renewal of a note past due. M. L. Warren was merely a surety on the note®Sued upon, and this fact was known to the plaintiff, the owner of the note. The note was executed on August 31, 1915. On July 6, 1915, the plaintiff took a mortgage, or loan deed, from the makers of the note, to secure the payment of another note due by them and also any other indebtedness the makers might *117owe the plaintiff. When this mortgage was given, the makers owed the plaintiff the debt for which the note sued upon was subsequently given. This mortgage was never recorded. The makers of the note went into bankruptcy, the plaintiff proved its claim in the bankrupt court, abandoned its mortgage, and made no effort to foreclose it. The surety testified that one of the inducements held out to him by the plaintiff to sign the note sued upon was that the mortgage had been taken from the makers of the note to secure its payment.

Under these circumstances we think the failure of the owner of the note to record the mortgage increased the risk of the surety and discharged him. The real test is not whether the note and the mortgage to secure it were given contemporaneously, but whether, under the facts stated, the failure to place the mortgage on record increased the surety’s risk. The fact that the makers of the mortgage refused to sign it until the mortgagee agreed not to record it would not prevent the surety from being released, he not being a party to the agreement and being in ignorance thereof at the time he was induced to sign the note sued upon. The surety did not contend that the note and the mortgage were executed contemporaneously, and there was no evidence that they were. The court therefore erred in instructing the jury that the surety did so contend, and in charging them, in substance, that it was for them to say whether or not the note and the mortgage were given contemporaneously. Under the above ruling, however, this error was harmless and does not require -a new trial.

The pleadings and the evidence were sufficient to authorize the charge upon the subject of usury. The other special assignments of error show no cause for a new trial. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and*Stephens, *JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32

                 Certificate 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 U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Alan Gold, President
and Howard Grunfeld, Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 U.S. Neurosurgical.


/s/ Alan Gold
-----------------------
Alan Gold
President

March 29,2004

/s/ Howard Grunfeld
-----------------------
Howard Grunfeld
Chief Financial Officer
March 29,2004


                                       30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MITCHELL AARON BURKE, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0444-WS-C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 11-0352-WS

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 31, 2016 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 5th day of October, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00352-TFM-B Document 185 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>
#### Jiame J. HARGROVE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis HARRISON, Jr., Warden; Michael Gaines, United States Parole Commissioner, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6157.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2001.

Decided June 1, 2001.

Jiame J. Hargrove, pro se. Arthur Erwin Peabody, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jiame J. Hargrove appeals the district court order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp.2000) petition. 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. *Hargrove v. Harrison,*No. CA-00-1400AM (E.D.Va. filed: December 14, 2000; entered: Dec. 18, 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 25TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GUADALUPE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 9, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Ronald Whit Dubose, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-15-00444-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 07-1246-CR

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 9, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the Annual Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
M. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.02, 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 Registrant.



|                      |  |  |  |                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN M. THOMPSON                    
|                      |  |  |  | John M. Thompson Chief Financial
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**






**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 WQN, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David S. Montoya, 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.




By:
            
            /s/
                David S. MontoyaName:
                David S. MontoyaTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer




May
      30,
      2006
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                      Consent of Independent Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-43655), to
the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-28877), to the incorporation by
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-59573), to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-24952), to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-28096), to the incorporation by
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 33-32275), to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-55816), to
the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-14369), to the incorporation by
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-14369-01), to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-17181), of
our report dated February 10, 2000, except in Note 3 for the final paragraph
under the "Telecommunications" section entitled "Investments and Acquisitions",
as to which the date is March 13, 2000, appearing on page 58 of The Montana
Power Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 20, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6334

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STAN BURT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution; MICHAEL SHEEDY, Associate Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution; THIERRY NETTLER, Captain, Lieber Correctional Institution; DELORIS GANTT, Property Control Office for Lieber Correctional Institution; L. CARRINGTON, IGC, Institution Grievances Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-421-6) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY & SETTANA, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of the § 1983 action, such appeal is untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). - 3 - PER CURIAM: Henry W. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the dismissal of his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001). * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and order and find no reversible error. SeeUnited States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). We deny Martin’s motion to strike and 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,211,960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,405,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                   529,905
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,540,189
<PP&E>                                       1,625,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                 625,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,593,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,553,831
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       144,163
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,895,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,593,437
<SALES>                                      8,026,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,026,673
<CGS>                                        2,331,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,331,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,292,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,504,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,504,810)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,504,810)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)


</TABLE>