alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1.   CERTIFICATION   I, Alan K. Allred, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report of Questar Gas Company on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007.  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 annual 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 registrants other certifying officer 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)) and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.   March 11, 2008 /s/Alan. K. Allred Alan K. Allred President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
                                   EXHIBIT 27

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               nov-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    aug-31-1999
<CASH>                                  2,301
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,033,077
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,035,378
<PP&E>                                  1,967,203
<DEPRECIATION>                          611,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,632,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   8,908,106
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                4,353
<OTHER-SE>                              (279,938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,632,521
<SALES>                                 17,083,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        17,083,163
<CGS>                                   19,493,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           38,037,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      1,611,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (20,584,241)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (20,584,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (20,584,241)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (9.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (9.99)



</TABLE>
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 the annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.

|/s/PETER. R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2004 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Gleitz, III, a Minor, Appellant, *v.*Gleitz, Sr., et al., Appellees.

(No. 21944

Decided February 5, 1951.)

*Mr. Hyman J. Blum,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Miller & HornbecJc,*for appellees.

Stevens, P. J.

In the trial court an action for damages was brought by a minor (three years old), through his mother and next friend, against his paternal grandparents, to recover for the loss of “love, affection, society, guidance and companionship” of his father, who, it was alleged, was willfully and maliciously induced by the defendants to break up plaintiff’s home and family.

A demurrer to the plaintiff’s amended petition was interposed by the defendants, on the ground that the amended petition failed to state a cause of action against the defendants.

Upon consideration thereof, the trial court sustained the demurrer; and, the plaintiff not desiring to plead further, the action was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendants for their costs.

This appeal on questions of law ensued.

The question presented is: May a child, acting through its mother as next friend, maintain an action against third persons for wrongfully and maliciously *338disrupting the family circle, thereby depriving it of the affection, companionship, guidance and care of its father?

Concededly no such action was known to the common law, and there is in Ohio no statutory authority for the maintenance of such an action.

It is urged by the appellant, however, that, upon the principle “there shall be no wrong without a remedy therefor, ’ ’ plaintiff should have been permitted to present his case to a jury, and that if the law, either statutory or common, affords no remedy to plaintiff, then the courts should create such a remedy.

Much has been said and written concerning “judicial empiricism,” or the right of courts to legislate.' However, the members of this court are of the opinion that the right to create new legal rights and remedies is by the supreme law of our state vested in the legislative bodies, and not in the courts; and we do not feel constrained to encroach upon the prerogatives of the legislative branch of the government.

We recognize that there are divergent lines of authority upon the question under consideration. However, we think the weight of authority and reason requires adherence by us to the rule announced in *Nelson*v. *Richwagen,*326 Mass., —, 95 N. E. (2d), 545.

We hold that if a right such as is here asserted is to be created in Ohio, the Legislature and not the courts must create it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Hunsicker and Doyle, JJ., concur.

Judges of the Ninth Appellate District sitting by designation in the Eighth Appellate District.
10507.

#### Watson *v.*Burnley.

Decided November 10, 1920.

Complaint; from McDuffie superior court—■ Judge Henry C. Hammond. March 12, 1919.

In her petition against Thomas E. Watson, filed August 13, 1918, Mattie Belle Burnley alleges, in brief, that in February, 1904, he and J. D. Watson, who was then her husband but from whom she was separated, entered into a contract with her for the purpose of making a settlement of a proceeding for alimony, then pending, which she had instituted against J. D. Watson, and the proceeding was settled by the contract. It is alleged that by the terms of this contract she “was to receive $25 per month so long as she should live and remain single, and without any other contingency whatsoever, and by the terms of said contract said Thomas E. Watson became surety thereon and bound himself for the true payment of said amount on the first day of each month as above stated;” that he jiaid the $25 monthly to her from the time of the making of the contract up to and including April, 1918, when J.. D. Watson died, but not for any subsequent month, and is due her this agreed sum for each of the four ensuing months (including the month of the filing of the petition), and refuses to pay the same; and she sues for the aggregate sum of $100. It is alleged that she was divorced from' J. D. Watson after the contract was made, and her former name, in which she sues, was restored to her. A copy of the contract was attached to the petition.

The defendant demurred on the grounds: (1) that no cause of action is set forth; (2) that the alleged contract is contrary to public policy, in that it provides for a divorce and dissolution of the marriage contract, as one of the contingencies on which the alleged contract shall be carried out; and (3) that the alleged contract is in restraint of marriage, after divorce, and is therefore contrary to public policy and void. The demurrer was overruled and the case came to the Court of Appeals on exception *780to that ruling. The controlling questions in the case were certified by this court to the Supreme Court; and those questions, with the contract, and the opinion of that court, appear in 150 *Ga.*460.

*779Smith, J.

In accordance with the rules of law governing this case, as set forth by the Supreme Court in response to questions certified to it by this court *(Watson*v. *Burnley,*150 *Ga.*460, 104 S. E. 220), the judgment of the court below overruling the demurrer .to the petition is *Affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*780
      *Sam. L. Olive, J. Glenn Stovall,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Burnside,*contra.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward CARR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6042.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 30, 2001.

Decided May 15, 2001.

Michael Edward Carr, pro se. Jerry Wayne Miller, United States Attorney, Asheville, NC, for appellee.

*121Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Carr,*Nos. CR-97-274; CA-00-211-1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 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.

*DISMISSED.*
|   | 1. | The                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  October                31, 2007 | /s/                Lee W.                Hendrickson                                                                                                     Lee                W. HendricksonChief                Financial Officer |
|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2***

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the  “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sandra G. Sciutto, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) orRule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. 1350 has been provided to CaliforniaCoastal Communities, Inc. and will be retained by California CoastalCommunities, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: May 6, 2005 | /s/ Sandra G. Sciutto   |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Sandra G. Sciutto       |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

*In accordance withclause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), the above certification (A) shall notbe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section,and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company explicitly incorporatesit by reference in any such filing.

 

----
<PAGE> 1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

MONSANTO COMPANY:

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Monsanto Company's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-36636, 2-76696, 2-90152, 33-13197,
33-21030, 33-39704, 33-39705, 33-39706, 33-39707, 33-49717, 33-53363, 33-53365,
33-53367, 333-02783, 333-02961, 333-02963, 333-33531, 333-38599 and 333-45341)
of our report dated February 27, 1998, incorporated by reference in this annual
report on Form 10-K of Monsanto Company for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                                   /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

                                                     DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Saint Louis, Missouri
March 16, 1998

                            ------------------------
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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") of FMS Financial  Corporation  (the  "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Craig W. Yates, President
and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Channing L. Smith,  Vice President and Chief
Financial  Officer,  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) 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.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                     <C>

/s/Craig W. Yates                            /s/Channing L. Smith
-------------------------------------        ------------------------------------------
Craig W. Yates                               Channing L. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
</TABLE>



Date: May 12, 2005                           Date: May 12, 2005
POWER OF ATTORNEY


                   WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                                   OF NEW YORK
                                AND THE FORM 10-Q




Know all men by these  presents  that  Samuel H. Pilch whose  signature  appears
below,  constitutes and appoints Louis G. Lower, II, and Michael J. Velotta, and
each of them, his attorneys-in-fact,  with power of substitution, and him in any
and all capacities, to sign any reports and amendments thereto for the Form 10-Q
for  Allstate  Life  Insurance  Company  of New York and to file the same,  with
exhibits  thereto  and  other  documents  in  connection  therewith,   with  the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  hereby  ratifying and confirming all that
each of said  attorneys-in-fact,  or his  substitute or  substitutes,  may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.


August 1, 1999
-------------------------------
Date


/s/ SAMUEL H. PILCH
-------------------------------
Samuel H. Pilch
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4816 

To permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of Congress Police 

employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2004 

Mr. NEY (for himself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of 

Congress Police employees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS TO 

4 HIRE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS POLICE EM5 PLOYEES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1006 of the Legislative 

7 Branch Appropriations Act, 2004 (2 U.S.C. 1901 note), 

8 is amended— 
2 

•HR 4816 IH 

1 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘TRAINING, DE2 TAILING, AND HIRING’’ and inserting ‘‘TRAINING

3 AND DETAILING’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘(a)’’ and the heading of sub5 section (a); 

6 (3) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating 

7 paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) as sub8 sections (a) and (b); and 

9 (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by 

10 striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

11 (a)’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact14 ment of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004. 

Æ
[Cite as State ex rel. Montanez v. Sutula , 2014-Ohio-3825.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101525



## STATE OF OHIO EX REL., SAMMY MONTANEZ

RELATOR

vs. 

## JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo

Order No. 477251 Motion No. 476461

RELEASE DATE: September 3, 2014FOR RELATOR Sammy Montanez, pro se Mansfield Correctional Institution Inmate No. 492-270 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, OH 44901

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶1} Sammy Montanez has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Montanez seeks a writ that requires Judge John D. Sutula to render a ruling with regard to a motion to “issue revised journal entry of conviction” filed on March 10, 2014, that he alleges is necessary in order to create a final appealable order in compliance with Crim.R. 32(C) in

State v. Montanez , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-04-454739-A. We decline to issue a writ of procedendo because respondent has performed the requested relief and the writ is now

moot. {¶2} Attached to respondent’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, journalized on July 3, 2014, which demonstrates that the court has ordered Montanez to be returned to the trial court’s jurisdiction for a resentencing hearing, and the order specifically references this original action as the impetus of the order. Accordingly, Montanez’s request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel.

Fontanella v. Kontos , 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger , 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459. A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty , 123 Ohio St.3d 86, 2009-Ohio-4050, 914 N.E.2d 366; State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle , 122 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-2367,

907 N.E.2d 1180. {¶3} Judge Sutula’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Costs to respondent. Costs waived. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all partieswith notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). {¶4} Writ denied.

__________________________________________ MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARREN L. GREEN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00702-WS-B

SHERIFF GROVER SMITH,

et al, : 

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of

this file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there

having been no objections filed, 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 ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction be and is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2006.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1