alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Mark E. Wilson,Chief Accounting Officer of EXCO Resources, Inc., certify that:

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of EXCO Resources, Inc.;

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in 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.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining 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 and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing 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, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  May 14, 2007 | /s/ MARK E. WILSON        |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                     | Mark E. Wilson            |
|                     | Chief Accounting  Officer |

 

----
Order entered July 25, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-09-01377-CV

DARLENE C. BALISTRERI-AMRHEIN, Appellant

V.

AHI & INSPECTOR AARON D. MILLER, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-01145-2008

ORDER

The Court has before it appellants’ July 11, 2013 “motion for reconsideration and good 

cause reasons of July 1, 2013 order.” The Court DENIES the motion.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### In re: David Leroy BEERS, Appellant.

No. 10-1105.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 26, 2010.

Opinion Filed: Oct. 29, 2010.

Eric L. Leinbach, Esq., Law Offices of Eric L. Leinbach, Easton, PA, for Appellant.

Joel A. Ackerman, Esq., Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, Mountainside, NJ, for Defendant.

*749James M. McGovern, Jr., Esq., Lomur-ro, Davison, Eastman & Munoz, Freehold, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

David Leroy Beers appeals from the order of the District Court, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion for sanctions against Ap-pellees, Joel Ackerman and Zucker Goldberg & Ackerman, LLC., in pursuing a claim against Beers’ estate during bankruptcy proceedings, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The District Court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Appellees’ conduct did not rise to the level required to justify sanctions, concluding that the standard for a fee-shifting sanction requires a finding of bad faith and that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its ruling. We conduct a plenary review “in determining whether the District Court erred in its disposition of [the] appeal from the Bankruptcy Court”. *In re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc.,*542 F.3d 90, 97 (3d Cir.2008).

Beers contends that the District Court erred in concluding that the legal standard for 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions includes a required element of bad faith. We find no such error. Both the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court thoroughly reviewed the applicable law and reasoned appropriately that there is an element of bad faith as part of the controlling standard. It has been well settled in the Third Circuit that 28 U.S.C. § 1927 requires a finding of four elements for the imposition of sanctions: “(1) multiplied proceedings; (2) unreasonably and vexatiously; (3) thereby increasing the cost of the proceedings; (4) with bad faith or with intentional misconduct.” *LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. First Connecticut Holding Group,*287 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir.2002). *See Also In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions,*278 F.3d 175, 180 (3d Cir.2002); *Hackman v. Valley Fair,*932 F.2d 239, 242 (3d Cir.1991); *Williams v. Giant Eagle Markets, Inc.,*883 F.2d 1184, 1191 (3d Cir.1989); *Baker Industr. Inc. v. Cerberus, Ltd.,*764 F.2d 204, 208 (3d Cir.1985). The Bankruptcy Court and the District Court correctly applied this standard when denying Beers’ motion for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the order of the District Court.
#### Isom Dodd, et al., *v.*John Rynearson’s Adm’r.

Contract of Married Woman Void as to Her, Binding on Other Signers.

While a contract of a married woman, such as under the statute does not bind her or her estate, is void as to her, it is valid upon persons who sign it, not under disability.

*673APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

April 11, 1876.

*Kyle & Poston, for appellants. T. J. Polk, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Mrs. Sarah Dodd was a married woman when she signed the note, and the contract is not such as under the statute a married woman can bind herself or estate for, consequently, as to her the contract was void; but although it was void as to her it was valid and binding on Isom Dodd, Floyd Burks and George Bradshaw, who labored under no disability. And they were not the sureties of Mrs. Sarah Dodd within the meaning of the statute, because she was not capable of binding herself, and the debt was the debt of the other persons who signed the note, not as sureties but as principals, there being no one bound for whom they could become surety. *Gaines’s Adm’x v. Poor,*3 Met. 503; *Short v. Bryant,*10 B. Mon. 10.

Judgment *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures Fund II L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      10,915,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,919<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,641,740<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,641,740<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,497,056<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               967,523
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                529,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            529,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   529,533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $36,919 and due from DWR
of $0.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $689,490.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $530,225, accrued brokerage
commissions of $26,234, accrued management fees of $29,099 and accrued
transaction fees and costs of $2,067.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $599,472, net change
in unrealized of $529,297, and interest income of $368,287.
</FN>
        

</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



The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor
Trust II  Series F (the Fund), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer  
|Kenneth A. Shewer      
|Chief Executive Officer
|September 16, 2005
##### 



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
  (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/ Bobby R. Johnson, Jr.

Bobby R. Johnson, Jr.Chief Executive Officer and PresidentJune 14, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES N. STRAWSER, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0424-CG-C

)

LUTHER STRANGE, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General for 

the State of Alabama, et al.,

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date granting Plaintiffs’ motion for 

permanent injunction and final judgment, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 

DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of the named Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiff Class members.

It is ORDERED and DECLARED that ALA. CONST. art. I, § 36.03 (2006)

and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate the Due

Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution. Judge Don Davis, Judge Tim Russell and the 

members of the Defendant Class are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing the 

Alabama laws that prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage. If the named 

Plaintiffs or any members of the Plaintiff Class take all steps that are required in 

the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to 

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 180 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

opposite-sex couples, Judge Don Davis, Judge Tim Russell and the members of the 

Defendant Class may not deny them a license on the ground that they are same-sex 

couples or because it is prohibited by the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the 

Alabama Marriage Protection Act or by any other Alabama law or Order, including 

any injunction or mandate issued by the Alabama Supreme Court pertaining to 

same-sex marriage. This injunction binds all the officers, agents, servants and 

employees, and others in active concert or participation with Judge Don Davis, 

Judge Tim Russell or any of the members of the Defendant Class who would seek to

enforce the marriage laws of Alabama that prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex 

marriage. 

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 180 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2
#### John *A.*Kanopka *v.*John Jaquett.

Real Estate — Conveyance—False Representations.

Where a grantee is induced to buy real estate and take conveyance thereof by the false representations of an insolvent grantor, that he is the owner thereof, although the contract is executed, the warranty in the deed is no indemnity, and he is entitled to relief to the extent that his vendor had no title to the land conveyed.

APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT,

November 6, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Taking the allegations of the answer as true, which must be done v for the purposes of the demurrer, and it appears that appellant purchased a small tract of land from appellee at its full value; that appellee at the time represented to appellant and assured him that he had a clear and perfect title to the whole tract of land, and appellant, relying on the representations made to him by appellee, accepted a conveyance for the land, believing that he thereby acquired a perfect and clear title to 'the land; but that he has since discovered that said representations made to him by appellee were false; that he represented that he owned three-fifths of said land, having purchased the interest of Sarah Tippett and Mary E. Williams. But that upon examination he finds that there is no record evidence of such purchasers, and that he has not acquired their titles to their portions of said land, and that appellee is insolvent.

Although the contract may be executed, still, as appellant has pointed out the particular defects in the title, of which he was igno*207rant at the time the conveyance was made, and alleges that he was induced to accept the conveyance by the misrepresentations of appellee, who is insolvent, whereby his warranty is no indemnity for the defect of title, he shows himself entitled to relief to the extent that his vendor had no title to the land.

*C. H. Lee, for appellant.*

*John H. Fryer, for appellee.*

*Young v. Hopkins, et al.,*6 T. B. Mon. 18. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer to the answer, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 214 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722 

[Report No. 118–265] 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2023 

Ms. SALINAS (for herself, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. HOYLE of 

Oregon, and Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Additional sponsor: Mr. BENTZ

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be 

printed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1722 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other 

purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1722 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reserva5 tion Act Amendment of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 1(d) of Public Law 100–425 (commonly 

8 known as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act’’; 102 Stat. 

9 1594; 108 Stat. 4566) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘lands within 

11 the State of Oregon’’ and inserting ‘‘the 84 acres 

12 known as the Thompson Strip’’; 

13 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para14 graph (3); and 

15 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(2) GAMING PROHIBITION.—Any real property 

18 obtained by the Tribes as part of a land claim settle19 ment approved by the United States, including any 

20 real property purchased with funds granted as part 

21 of any land claim settlement, shall not be eligible, or 

22 used, for any class II gaming or class III gaming 

23 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

24 2701 et seq.) (as those terms are defined in section 

25 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
4 

•HR 1722 RH

1 SEC. 3. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED 

2 TRIBES. 

3 Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this 

4 Act, shall be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, af5 fect, or modify any treaty right of an Indian Tribe (as 

6 defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

7 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 214 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722 

[Report No. 118–265] 

A BILL 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and 

N

for other purposes. 

OVEMBER 3, 2023 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1816 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1816

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access at 
     public institutions of higher education for religious groups.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2023

  Mr. Walberg (for himself, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Ms. Hageman, Mr. 
   Weber of Texas, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Babin, Mr. Mann, Mr. Latta, Mr. 
 Lamborn, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Grothman) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access at 
     public institutions of higher education for religious groups.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Campus Access Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

    Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 124. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

    ``None of the funds made available under this Act may be provided 
to any public institution of higher education that denies to a 
religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege that is 
otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the institution 
(including full access to the facilities of the institution and 
official recognition of the organization by the institution) because of 
the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or 
standards of conduct of the religious student organization.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 192 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 414
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 192

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2024

                     Received; read the first time

                              June 4, 2024

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from 
voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the Local 
             Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
              ELECTIONS.

    An individual who is not a citizen of the United States may not 
vote in an election for public office in the District of Columbia or in 
any ballot initiative or referendum in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LOCAL RESIDENT VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022.

    The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 
24-242) is repealed, and any provision of law amended or repealed by 
such Act shall be restored or revived as if such Act had not been 
enacted into law.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 414

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 192

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from 
voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the Local 
             Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 4, 2024

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```