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

                                 CERTIFICATION


 I, Elise Nissen, Chief Financial Officer of AFP Imaging Corporation, certify
that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
    Corporation;

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

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
    the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
    registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

         a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
             disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
             supervision, to enable 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

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers 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
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
             or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
             reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 controls over financial reporting.









Date: February 11, 2005                /s/   Elise Nissen
                                       -------------------------
                                             Elise Nissen
                                         Chief Financial Officer






                                       19
#### Cornwall *v.*Davis.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

January 21, 1889.)

Per Curiam.

Upon the authority of *Wakelee*v. *Davis, ante,*280, the demurrer is allowed. The complainant may amend within 20 days.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3792 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 

tax for qualified elementary and secondary education tuition. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

Mr. MARTINEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

credit against tax for qualified elementary and secondary 

education tuition. 

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 ‘‘Tax and Education 

5 Assistance for Children (TEACH) Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SEC7 ONDARY EDUCATION TUITION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

10 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3792 IS

1 amended by inserting after section 25D the following new 

2 section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 25E. QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDU4 CATION TUITION. 

5 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—There shall be al6 lowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 

7 for a taxable year an amount equal to the qualified ele8 mentary and secondary education tuition paid or incurred 

9 by the taxpayer during the taxable year. 

10 ‘‘(b) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The amount allowed as 

11 a credit under subsection (a) with respect to the taxpayer 

12 for any taxable year shall not exceed— 

13 ‘‘(1) $4,500 in the case of a joint return, 

14 ‘‘(2) $4,500 in the case of an individual who is 

15 not married, and 

16 ‘‘(3) $2,250 in the case of a married individual 

17 filing a separate return. 

18 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

19 EDUCATION TUITION.— 

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified elemen21 tary and secondary education tuition’ means ex22 penses for tuition which are incurred in connection 

23 with the enrollment or attendance of any dependent 

24 of the taxpayer with respect to whom the taxpayer 

25 is allowed a deduction under section 151 as an eleVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:11 Aug 05, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3792.IS S3792

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 3792 IS

1 mentary or secondary school student at a private or 

2 religious school. 

3 ‘‘(2) SCHOOL.—The term ‘school’ means any 

4 school which provides elementary education or sec5 ondary education (kindergarten through grade 12), 

6 as determined under State law.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

8 for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 

9 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relat10 ing to section 25D the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 25E. Qualified elementary and secondary education tuition.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM KORENKO, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DDC-08-225 DECISION

On December 12, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years for placement in an appropriate correctional facility or program, for the offense of Count I: Partner/Family Member Assault, a felony.

*32On May 7, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Steve Bolstad.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
##### 



EXHIBIT NO. 99.1 (FAIRMONT LOGO) For immediate release FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS
ACQUIRES REMAINING INTEREST IN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TORONTO, August 25,
2004 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR)(TSX/NYSE:
FHR) announced today that it has completed the acquisition of the minority
interest in the Fairmont management company from Maritz, Wolff & Co. for
approximately $70 million. Commenting on the transaction, William R. Fatt, FHRs Chief Executive Officer,
said, We are pleased to now own 100% of the Fairmont management company as we
anticipate considerable growth for our luxury brand over the next several
years. Mr. Fatt continued, Maritz, Wolff & Co. is a significant owner of
hotel real estate that we manage and will continue to be an important partner
for us in the future. About Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. FHR is one of North Americas leading owner/operators of luxury hotels and
resorts. FHRs managed portfolio consists of 82 luxury and first-class
properties with more than 33,000 guestrooms in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Bermuda, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. FHR owns Fairmont
Hotels Inc., North Americas largest luxury hotel management company, as
measured by rooms under management, with 44 distinctive city center and resort
hotels such as The Fairmont San Francisco, The Fairmont Banff Springs and The
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess. FHR also owns Delta Hotels, Canadas largest
first-class hotel management company, which manages and franchises 38 city
center and resort properties in Canada. In addition to hotel management, FHR
holds real estate interests in 22 properties and an approximate 35% investment
interest in Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns 24
properties.  -30- Contact: 
Emma
Thompson
Executive Director Investor Relations
Tel: 416.874.2485
Email:   investor@fairmont.com
Website:   www.fairmont.com/investor
#### Amy L. Roberts et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., et al., Appellants.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 71.

Motion by Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as *739filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 of Real Estate Associates Limited III (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: August 13, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: August 13, 2008  





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 10, 2011/s/ Patricia D. ChiodoPatricia D. ChiodoSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 10, 2011
#### Jiovon Anonymous, an Infant, by His Father and Legal Guardian, Thomas Anonymous, et al., Respondents, v City of Rochester et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 30, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion by New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,311]

      ( print page 21833)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 19, 2009 in response to a petition filed by the United Automobile, Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union, Local 974 on behalf of workers of Caterpillar, Inc., Large Power Systems Division, Mossville, Illinois.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10870 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jason Preston Gross

, * From the 35th District Court

of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR23658

.

Vs. No. 11

- 17

- 00 060

- CR * Febr uary 14 , 2019

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright

, S. C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60813 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:01-CR-33-ALL-D

-------------------- August 20, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He argues that the delay from the dismissal of the state charges and the original federal trial date violated his right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Assessing a constitutional speedy-trial claim requires balancing the four factors enunciated by the Supreme Court inNo. 01-60813 -2- Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). This court reviews for clear error a district court’s findings in applying this balancing test and its overall evaluation of these factors. See United States v. Lucien , 61 F.3d 366, 371 ( 5th Cir. 1995)
. The first Barker factor--the length of the delay--serves as a “triggering mechanism.” Barker , 407 U.S. at 530. This court generally requires a delay of one year to trigger the full speedy-trial analysis under Barker
. See Lucien , 61 F.3d at 371
. The right to a speedy trial “attaches at the time of arrest or indictment, whichever comes first, and continues until the date of trial.” United States v. Garcia , 995 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1993). The constitutional speedy trial right does not attach until a federal indictment or arrest, even if a prior state arrest is based on the same events. See United States v. Walker , 710 F.2d 1062, 1069 (5th Cir. 1983). Williams’ Sixth Amendment right did not attach until the date of the federal indictment, which was less than six months before the original trial date. Williams has not demonstrated a constitutional speedy trial violation. The district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment is AFFIRMED.
#### Francis OKOGWU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60047.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Don George Scroggin, John Clifford Cunningham, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship *&*Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francis Okogwu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) December 23, 2005, order denying as untimely a motion to reopen Okogwu’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s order of removal. Because the petition for review is timely-only as to the December 23, 2005, *647order, we lack jurisdiction to address Ok-ogwu’s arguments concerning the merits of the order of removal. *Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 394, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Okogwu’s request for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(a) because he has not exhausted administrative remedies as to this issue. *Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir .2004).

Okogwu has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. *Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales,*413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2005). He has not identified any “extraordinary or unique circumstances” that would explain the delay in delivery or why he could not mail the motion to reopen to the BIA at an earlier date. He has failed to show that he warrants tolling of the limitation period for filing the motion with the BIA. *Zhong Guang Sun v. United States,*421 F.3d 105, 110-11 (2nd Cir.2005). We note that the “mailbox rule” does not apply to filings in administrative agency proceedings. *Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS,*997 F.2d 108, 112 (5th Cir.1993).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2020

No. 04-20-00120-CV

IN RE Brandon HJELLA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On February 24, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for stay 

pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a serious 

question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this 

court no later than March 11, 2020. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

Relator’s request for a stay is GRANTED, in part. The trial court’s orders regarding 

payment of attorney’s fees, including its January 30, 2020, “Order Granting Motion for 

Attorney’s Fees” and all proceedings on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Attorney’s Fees Order, to 

Show Cause and to Enter Sanctions” are STAYED pending final resolution of the petition for 

writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on February 25, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CI15792, styled Red McCombs Motors, Ltd. v. Brandon Hjella, 

pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, we have determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-50125

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GILBERTO MONTANA-ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(DR-97-CR-235-1)

November 27, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Gilberto Montana-Romero has filed

a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in this appeal of a conviction and

sentence for illegal re-entry, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § § 1326(a)

and (b). Montana-Romero was given an opportunity to file a

response to the motion, and he has not responded. Our independent

review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue.
-2-

Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

H:\SHARED\OPCLERK\NPOP\98-50125