alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)**
I, Ron E. Hooper, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Form 10-Q of Permian Basin RoyaltyTrust, for which Bank of America, N.A., acts as Trustee;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trustcorpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), or forcausing such controls and procedures to be established and maintained, for theregistrant and I have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report my conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors:
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and
 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to theextent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by BurlingtonResources Oil & Gas Company and River Hill Energy Corporation.        Date: May 10, 2004 By:  /s/ RON E. HOOPER    Ron E. Hooper,    Senior Vice President, Royalty Management
#### In the Matter of Lois Carter, Appellant, v Jeffrey Carter, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 545]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act Article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated November 2, 2012, which awarded the parties joint custody of the subject children *716and denied her petition for permission to relocate with the subject children to Florida.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not err in determining that the mother failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a proposed relocation to Florida would serve the subject children’s best interests *(see Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; *Matter of Davis v Ogden,*109 AD3d 539 [2013]; *Miller v Pipia,*297 AD2d 362 [2002]). The court considered and gave appropriate weight to all of the relevant factors, including, but not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the father, the degree to which the mother’s and children’s lives might be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasability of preserving the relationship between the father and children through suitable visitation arrangements *(see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87*NY2d at 740-741; *Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz,*108 AD3d 712, 713 [2013]; *Matter of McBryde v Bodden,*91 ADSd 781 [2012]). The impact of a move on the relationship between the children and the noncustodial parent is a central concern *(see Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz,*108 AD3d at 713; *Matter of Eddington v McCabe,*98 AD3d 613, 615 [2012]; *Matter of Retamozzo v Moyer,*91 AD3d 957, 958 [2012]). The mother failed to establish that the proposed move would not have a negative impact on the children’s relationship with the father.

Furthermore, the Family Court did not err in awarding the parties joint custody. Joint custody is appropriate where the parties involved are relatively stable, amicable parents who can behave in a mature, civilized fashion *(see Matter of Fowler v Rivera,*296 AD2d 409 [2002]; *Matter of Laura A.K. v Timothy M.,*204 AD2d 325 [1994]). Here, although the parties have had disagreements, they have behaved in a relatively civilized fashion toward each other, and there is no evidence that they are so hostile or antagonistic toward each other that they would be unable to put aside their differences for the good of the children *(see Matter of Retamozzo v Moyer,*91 AD3d at 958-959; *cf. Matter of Wright v Kaura,*106 AD3d 751, 751-752 [2013]; *Matter of Laura A.K. v Timothy M.,*204 AD2d 325 [1994]). There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that an award of joint custody was appropriate *(see Matter of Gonnard v Guido,*108 AD3d 709 [2013]; *cf. Matter of Pavone v Bronson,*88 AD3d 724 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ, concur.
|   | 1. | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2009,      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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for      the period ending June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      China Advanced Construction Materials Group,  Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      September 28, 2009                    |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| /s/Xianfu Han                                    |
| Xianfu      HanPrinicipal      Executive Officer |

----
#### Isbell, administrator, *et al. v.*Blanchard, survivor.

1. Where a plaintiff suing as administrator in an action pending in the superior court, makes a joint motion with another to substitute the latter as party plaintiff in the case, on the ground that the former has been dismissed from his trust as administrator and the latter has been appointed and qualified as his successor, and this motion was denied, a writ of error brought by the former to reverse the judgment may be amended in the Supreme Court by . adding the latter as a co-party plaintiff in error.

2. On review of the case of *Jones et al, administrators,*v. *Lamar et al, 77 Ga.*149, holding that an administrator *de bonis non*appointed in another State cannot be made a party plaintiff in an action brought by his predecessor in the trust, it is affirmed, inasmuch as it is not absolutely clear that the ruling in that case was incorrect, and the legislature having acquiesced in the same from the year 1886 up to the present time.

3. There is no provision by statuté for making a domestic administrator a party to a suit brought by an administrator appointed in another State. *Judgment affirmed.*

August 14, 1894.

Motion to make party. Before Judge Butt. Muscogee superior court. November term, 1893.

Annie S. Orr died in Bussell county, Alabama, June 16, 1884, leaving a young child. June 24, 1891, Isbell was duly appointed her administrator by the probate court of that county, and on August 1,1891, he brought suit as such against Blanchard in Muscogee county, Georgia. On November 9, 1893, he resigned his office; his letters were revoked by the probate court, and on December 12, 1893, Patterson was appointed by said court administrator *de bonis non*of the estate of Annie B. Orr. Opon the call of the suit for trial in Muscogee superior court in January, 1894, plaintiff’s counsel moved that the name of Isbell as administrator be stricken, and the name of Patterson substituted therefor. This motion having been denied, counsel moved to continue the case for the purpose of allowing administration to be taken out in Georgia, so that a *679Georgia administrator might be made a party in place of Isbell. This also was refused, and plaintiff excepted. In the Supreme Court, on motion of counsel for plaintiff, an order was passed making Patterson, administrator, a co-party plaintiff in error.

Louis P. Garrard, for plaintiff.

Peabody, Brannon, Hatcher & Martin and Little & Wimbish, for defendant.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

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

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited III (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 433 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement 

standards for the operation of non-scheduled, commercial air carrier 

(air charter) and general aviation operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop 

and implement standards for the operation of non-scheduled, commercial air carrier (air charter) and general 

aviation operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 

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 ‘‘Reopen Reagan Na5 tional to General Aviation Act’’. 
2 

•S 433 IS

1 SEC. 2. AIR CHARTER OPERATIONS AT RONALD REAGAN 

2 WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later 

4 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

5 the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with 

6 the Secretary of Transportation, shall finalize and imple7 ment regulations permitting the resumption of non-sched8 uled, commercial air carrier (air charter) and general avia9 tion operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National 

10 Airport. The regulations may provide reasonable require11 ments to ensure the security of operations at the airport. 

12 Such requirements may include— 

13 (1) screening and certification of air charter 

14 and general aviation flight and ground crews; 

15 (2) advance clearance of passenger manifests by 

16 the Transportation Security Administration; 

17 (3) physical screening of passengers and lug18 gage for air charter and general aviation operations; 

19 (4) physical inspection of aircraft; 

20 (5) compliance with established special flight 

21 procedures; and 

22 (6) limiting the airports from which flights into 

23 Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport can 

24 originate. 

Æ
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3941 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to fully allow students to 

live in units eligible for the low-income housing credit, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

Mr. SANTORUM 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 fully allow 

students to live in units eligible for the low-income housing credit, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STUDENT HOUSING ELIGI4 BLE FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 42(i)(3)(D) of the Inter6 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain students 

7 not to disqualify unit) is amended by striking all after 

8 clause (i) and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(ii) entirely by full-time students if 

10 such students are— 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3941 IS

1 ‘‘(I) single parents and their chil2 dren, 

3 ‘‘(II) married and file a joint re4 turn, or 

5 ‘‘(III) adult students fulfilling 

6 the requirements for a secondary 

7 school education or secondary edu8 cation equivalency diploma. 

9 For purposes of determining whether a unit is 

10 occupied by a full-time student, an individual 

11 under the age of 19 years who attends kinder12 garten through grade 12 shall not be taken into 

13 account.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

16 of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
#### Hall v. Toreros, II, Inc.

Case below: 176 N.C. App. 309

No. 187P06

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-199)

Allowed 01/25/07
Exhibit 32.01  
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report of Anoteros, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George
G. Chachas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
   
 __________________________________________
 By:
George G. Chachas
 Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  Dated:
March 27, 2008
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

       STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                       BY
                 PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND
                 CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

                            Dated - November 7, 2002


        In accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
John A. O'Malley, hereby certify that the periodic report, to which this
Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly present, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of
the date first written above.


                                        /s/  John A. O'Malley
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John A. O'Malley
                                        Chairman, President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                       479
<INVENTORY>                                      2,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,825
<PP&E>                                          22,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,566
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,245)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,164
<SALES>                                          2,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,611
<CGS>                                            2,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   581
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (813)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,857)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.88)
        

</TABLE>
Emerson Electric Co. Exhibit 10.9 to Form 8K





Exhibit 10.9







EMERSON SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN (SERP) 




                     In
the event of a Change of Control (as defined in the SERP), I hereby elect to receive any
benefit due under Section VI of the SERP: 


	I. 	[   ] 	Upon the Change of Control in a lump sum distribution; or  





	II. 	[   ] 	Upon a termination of employment occurring after a Change of Control, in
          the form of:   




	  	 	(a) 	[   ] 	a lump sum distribution; or 




	  	 	(b) 	[   ] 	a benefit in the form provided under Section IV of the SERP.*










	
 	 	
 
	Date	 	Signature of Participant














_________________ 



	* 	  	
Section IV of the SERP provides for a lifetime benefit with sixty monthly payments
guaranteed, or such other form determined by the Committee.
Order filed December 5, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00712

- CV

____________ DATRIL BOSTON D/B/A MR. DAY RENTS AND AP ARTMENT

EXPRESS, LLC , Appellant

V. LESLIE W.M. ADAMS, A TTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC D/B/A LESLIE W.M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 21074



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 5, 2019

. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. Ap p. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the c lerk

of this court on or before December 20 , 2019

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fe e in accordance with this order, the appeal will be
dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.