alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION 

I, Marvin Tseu, Chief Executive Officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Axesstel, Inc.; 

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 thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based onmy 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4.    The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 Registrant, includingits 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 endof 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 the small business issuer’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; and 

5.    TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 the Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2007
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Vartholome K. Tekmitchov, Respondent. Musika LLC, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 579]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 15, 2012, which ruled that Musika LLC was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Claimant offered guitar lessons for Musika LLC, a business that matches music teachers it deems qualified with students. Musika required its teachers to execute a contract that set the fee for lessons, prohibited them from competing with Musika or soliciting its students, and obliged teachers to perform any services “reasonably requested” by it. The teachers were required to report their work activities to Musika which, in turn, billed the students and paid the teachers by check. Moreover, teachers were expected to notify Musika if they were unavailable to work and could not use a substitute teacher without prior approval. Notwithstanding the proof in the record that could support a contrary result, the above constitutes substantial evidence for the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant and those similarly situated were Musika’s employees and not independent contractors *(see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts],*60 NY2d 734, 736-737 [1983]; *Matter of Faculty Tutoring Serv. [Sweeney],*244 AD2d 744, 744 [1997]; *Matter of Rubin [Freelance*Advantage— *Sweeney],*236 AD2d 679, 680-681 [1997]).

As a final matter, we reject Musika’s contention that the Board disregarded factually indistinguishable precedent in rendering its decision.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
American Financial Enterprises, Inc. 10-Q for the nine months ended
September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          75,479
<SECURITIES>                                   503,985<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 579,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,618
<OTHER-SE>                                     459,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   579,666
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,269<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (99)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,223
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
<FN>
<F1>Included in "Marketable securities" is AFEI's investment in affiliates
of $496.6 million.
<F2>Included in "Total revenue" is equity in net earnings of affiliate of
$5.0 million.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before February 9, 2009 to be assured of consideration.

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1511.                

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                

*Title:*                     REG-209828-96 (TD 8758—Final) Nuclear Decommissioning Funds; Revised Schedules of Ruling Amounts.                

*Description:*                     The regulations revise the requirements for requesting a schedule of ruling amounts based on a formula or method.                

*Respondents:*                     Businesses or other for-profits.                

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     100 hours.                

*OMB Number:*                     1545-0013.                

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                

*Form:*                     56.                

*Title:*                     Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship.                

*Description:*                     Form 56 is used to inform the IRS that a person in acting for another person in a fiduciary capacity so that the IRS may mail tax notices to the fiduciary concerning the person for whom he/she is acting. The data is used to ensure that the fiduciary relationship is established or terminated and to mail or discontinue mailing designated tax notices to the fiduciary.                

*Respondents:*                     Businesses or other for-profits.                

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     292,800 hours.                

*Clearance Officer:*                     Glenn P. Kirkland (202) 622-3428, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516,   1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Nicholas A. Fraser (202) 395-5887, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                

Celina Elphage,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-109 Filed 1-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EX-35.2
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation

ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR2 (the
"Agreement") hereby certify that:

1. A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January 1,
2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and EMC's
performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on this
12th day of March 2008.


By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

(logo) MBA
Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America

2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190, Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190
----

----

|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: November 12, 2010 |  /s/ George R. Quist                               |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |  George R. Quist                                   |
|                     |  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer)                           |

----
#### In the Matter of George Chavis, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[871 NYS2d 757]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered June 12, 2007 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

*955Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with attempted assault, harassment and refusing a direct order. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing that ensued, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and an administrative penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge the determination. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s applicátion, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. As for petitioner’s assertion that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses at the disciplinary hearing, the record on review contains written denials explaining why such witnesses were not permitted to testify *(see Matter of Bilbrew v*Goord, 33 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2006]). Petitioner’s related claim that he was improperly denied documentary evidence is equally unpersuasive, as the record demonstrates that petitioner was provided with or allowed to review those requested materials that were both relevant and available. Neither the Hearing Officer nor the employee assistant can be faulted for failing to produce documents or videotapes that did not exist *(see Matter of Russell v Selsky,*50 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2008]; *Matter of Roye v Goord,*34 AD3d 1134 [2006]) and, based upon our review of the record as a whole, we are persuaded that the assistance provided was adequate *(see Matter of Nina v Selsky,*35 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2006]). Although the Hearing Officer did not permit petitioner to introduce into evidence the actual grievances petitioner had filed against facility staff, he did afford petitioner the opportunity to testify as to the substance of those grievances *(cf. Matter of Mulcahy v Selsky,*295 AD2d 663, 663-664 [2002]), which petitioner elected not to do. Finally, the record reveals that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and there is no indication that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Griffin v Goord,*43 AD3d 591 [2007]).

Cardona, RJ., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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 Quarterly Report of Global Gold
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Van Z.
Krikorian, the President of the Company, 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
the Company.


Dated: May 10, 2005


                                                  By: /s/ Van Z. Krikorian
                                                      --------------------------
                                                          Van Z. Krikorian
                                                          President
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 Quarterly Report of Global Gold
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Drury J.
Gallagher, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
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
the Company.


 Dated: August 23, 2004


                                         By: /s/ Drury J. Gallagher
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Drury J. Gallagher
                                             Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Treasurer
(October 15, 2013)

#### Brian Estrada, Appellant, v Metropolitan Property Group, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[973 NYS2d 147]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which, upon reargument of defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to dismiss, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint as against it, granted defendant Victoria Hughes’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her, and granted defendant Metropolitan Property Group, Inc.’s (the broker) cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on alleged misstatements about a cooperative apartment’s square footage in deciding to purchase the apartment. The advertisements for the apartment by the broker described the apartment as “550 s.f.” and as “approximately 500 s.f.” The discrepancy in the square footage in the various advertisements should have alerted plaintiff to the possibility that advertisements were not accurate with respect to square footage but mere sales puffery. Under these circumstances, plaintiff should have taken the opportunity to inspect the apartment before he contracted to buy it. Moreover, with respect to the appraiser and the bank, plaintiff could not have relied on the appraiser’s report inasmuch as he entered into a contract to purchase the apartment four months before the appraisal was prepared. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the fraud claims against defendants *(see Stuart Silver Assoc. v Baco Dev. Corp.,*245 AD2d 96, 98-99 [1st Dept 1997]).

The court properly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the broker. Given that the fraud claim was deficient, the only branch of the fiduciary duty claim that could have remained was one for “injury to property” However, that claim is time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 214 [4]; *Yatter v Morris Agency,*256 AD2d 260, 261 [1st Dept 1998]), as the alleged injury occurred more than three years before the filing of this action. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32131(U).]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2015

No. 04-15-00472-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.V. JR., A.A.V., N.V., S.L.V., M.A.T., E.J.V., J.F.V., 

CHILDREN,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00998

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Texas Rules of Judicial Administration require this court to “ensure that the appeal is 

brought to final disposition . . . [w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.” TEX.

R. JUD. ADM. 6.2(a). This accelerated appeal from the termination of appellant’s parental rights 

has been pending since the notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on July 28, 2015. 

Appellant’s brief was originally due on August 27, 2015. On August 27, 2015, appointed 

counsel of record, Mr. Joseph Bohac, filed a motion requesting a twenty-day extension of time.

The motion is GRANTED and Mr. Bohac is hereby ORDERED to file appellant’s brief 

no later than September 16, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE 

GRANTED. If Mr. Bohac does not file appellant’s brief by September 16, 2015, this appeal 

will be abated to the trial court for appointment of new counsel.

The Clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Bohac by

certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### State v. Moore

Case below: 183 N.C. App. — (5 June 2007)

No. 332P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 CCOA06-937)

Denied 08/23/07