alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATIONS**I, John L. Patenaude, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Nashua Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Not Applicable];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: March 26, 2007 /s/ John L. Patenaude   John L. Patenaude   Vice President — Finance, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                     5                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                            29,150
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 421,403
<PP&E>                                           304,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                   282,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,405,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,798,002
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        5,000
<COMMON>                                           9,062
<OTHER-SE>                                       607,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,405,472
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    815,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               145,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,113,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,113,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,113,367
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.07
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dr. Christopher McCormack, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global  Environmental
Energy Corp.

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  Quarterly  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 Quarterly
report.

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this Quarterly  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 Quarterly report.

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d- 14) for the registrant and have:

     A) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 Quarterly report is being prepared;
     B) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
Quarterly report (the "evaluation date"); and
     C)  presented  in  this  Quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the evaluation date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     A) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     B) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.


Date:  October 29, 2004

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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MISTER IVORY,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00215

- CR

Appeal from the

396th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1235782D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### W. E. Mitchell *v.*M. A. Bailey & Co.

Contracts of Married Women.

A contract of a married woman, not entitled to transact a separate business, is void, but when sbe bas parted witb money or property by reason of sucb contract, ber husband must join her in an action to recover.

Disability of Wife.

A married woman, who bas not been empowered to act as a feme sole, bas no power to form a partnership witb others.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 19, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The petition being defective, it is not necessary to notice the various alleged errors relied on for a reversal of the judgment. It appears on the face of the petition that the party, with whom the contract was made, was at the time of the institution of the action a married woman. She declares against the appellant as the wife of Bailey. The contract is signed by Mr. M. A. Bailey, and, she being a feme covert, the right of action, if any, was in the husband. A contract made by a married woman is absolutely void, but when she has parted with money or property by reason of such a contract the husband must be a party to the action. The court did not judicially know that she had been empowered to act as a feme sole; and when pleading the coverture in abatement the appellees still had the right to amend their petition. This they failed to do, but filed what is called a reply, to which no response was necessary, nor was it proper *775to present such a traverse of the plea in abatement.

*James Weir &*Son, *for appellant. Owen & Ellis,.for appellees.*

The issue having been made by the plea, and the burden being on the appellee to show that the disability of the wife had been removed, there is an entire absence of proof showing that she had been declared a feme sole with the right to sue. So in either event the judgment must be reversed. The demurrer, however, should have been sustained to the petition. It there appeared that the plaintiff was a married woman. She had no right to form a partnership with others. Her contract was void, not only with the appellant, but with those to whom she transferred the claim.

The judgment is *reversed*and cause remanded with directions to permit the appellees to amend their petition, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### Michael J. ALLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-3365.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 10, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Alley seeks review of the June 15, 2000, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB Docket No. PH0752990428-I-1, which dismissed his appeal as settled. We *affirm.*

Alley was a custodial laborer for the United States Postal Service’s Lehigh Valley Processing and Distribution Center in Pennsylvania. He entered into a Last Chance Settlement Agreement (LCSA) in which a pending removal action was dropped in return for his agreement to have no more than three unscheduled absences during any six month period as well as no absences without official leave. He also agreed to waive the right to appeal in any forum, including the Merit Systems Protection Board. Within three months of the LCSA, he was late for work four times and had four full days of unscheduled absences. The Postal Service removed him effective September 4, 1999.

Alley filed an appeal with the board. Because he had waived his right to appeal for violating the LCSA, the administrative judge issued a show cause order. On November 12, 1999, he asked the board to withdraw his appeal pursuant to a second settlement agreement with the Postal Service. The administrative judge found his request for cancellation of his appeal voluntary, and dismissed the appeal. He subsequently filed a petition for review to the full board, which was denied, and filed a timely petition for review in this court.

Our review is limited to setting aside any action that is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, *898an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1994).

It is undisputed that Alley requested that the board dismiss his appeal pursuant to his second settlement agreement. On appeal, he does not assert that his request to dismiss was involuntary or otherwise invalid. He only argues that he was discriminated against and was trying to get needed help through the agency’s Employee Assistance Program. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of board decisions concerning discrimination. He has offered no other arguments as to why this court should reverse the board’s dismissal, which he requested. Furthermore, he agrees that the board did not apply the wrong law. Accordingly the board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT MARCH 31, 1997
AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997 OF NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                     41,000,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                             249,400,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (5,100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                90,100,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          396,300,000
<PP&E>                                  1,161,100,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          (653,900,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,411,900,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     313,000,000
<BONDS>                                   241,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   400,000
<COMMON>                                   15,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                644,000,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,411,900,000
<SALES>                                   334,600,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          334,600,000
<CGS>                                     144,800,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             144,800,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          136,400,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,600,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            56,400,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               20,600,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        35,800,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               35,800,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.46


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant      to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| Date:                June 13, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Craig E. Peeples                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Craig                E. Peeples                                                                                                    |
|                               |   | Interim                Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Controller(Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |

**A      signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.      and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

BLADIMIR RIASCOS ARBODELA 10-00179-001

08744-003

12/22/2011

Pro Se

✔

✔

80 65 months

12/22/2011

January 21, 2015

November 1, 2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.01.21 15:48:16 -06'00'

Case 1:10-cr-00179-CG-N Document 162 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Micro General Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
33-22240, No. 2-85485 and No. 2-92490 on Form S-8 of Micro General Corporation
(the Company) of our report dated February 20, 1998, relating to the balance
sheets of Micro General Corporation as of December 31, 1997 and December 31,
1996 and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity(deficiency)
and cash flows for the three-year period ended December 31, 1997 and the related
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form
10-K of Micro General Corporation.

Our report, dated February 20, 1998, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has
limited working capital resources which raise substantial doubt about its
ability to continue as a going concern.  The financial statements and
financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments that might result
from the outcome of that uncertainty.






 /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Orange County, California
March 31, 1998
Page 1
March 30, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)

v.

Case Number: 1:08-CR-00190-001

GREGORY DAJUAN MOORE USM Number: 10352-003

Peter J. Madden, Esquire

Defendant’s Attorney

THE DEFENDANT:

admitted guilt to violation of the special condition of the term of supervision as set forth in the Petition dated 8/9/2016.

was found in violation of condition(s) after denial of guilt.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these violations:

Violation Number Nature of Violation Violation Ended

Special Technical

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) ________________________ and is discharged as to such violation(s) condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any 

change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are 

fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States Attorney of material changes in 

economic circumstances.

 

August 30, 2016

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

Signature of Judge

CALLIE V. S. GRANADE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Name and Title of Judge

September 8, 2016

Date

Case 1:08-cr-00190-KD-B Document 67 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 245D (SDAL 01/16) Judgment in a Criminal Case Judgment -- Page 2 of 2

DEFENDANT: GREGORY DAJUAN MOORE

CASE NUMBER: 1:08-CR-00190-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of: SIX (6)

MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at a.m. p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

 

UNITED STATES MARSHAL

By 

DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Case 1:08-cr-00190-KD-B Document 67 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 2
Order entered January 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00455-CV

KIMBERLEY PETTIGREW, Appellant

V.

MEGAN REEVES & BRIANA TROY, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-03642-2011

ORDER

Before the Court are appellees’ January 2, 2013 motion to dismiss the appeal and 

appellant’s January 8, 2013 response to the motion to dismiss. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is 

DENIED.

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter 

Claudia Webb to file either the reporter’s record, written verification that no hearings were 

recorded, or written verification that appellant has not requested or paid for the record within 

THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We notify appellant that if we receive verification she 

has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, appellant’s brief will be 
due within THIRTY DAYS of the date of the verification of nonpayment.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
##### 



1.
    
    Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following:
  2.
    
    Section 2.6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following:




---



##### 



3.
    
    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.4.
    
    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original
and all of which shall constitute the same document.5.
    
    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all
respects.
  MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.By:
    
    /s/ Robert J. CouryName: Robert J. CouryTitle: Vice Chairman and CEOEXECUTIVE/s/ Louis J. DeBoneLouis J. DeBone
 2