alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Lee Ann Anderson, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of San Juan BasinRoyalty Trust, for which TexasBank acts as Trustee;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and I have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under mysupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto me by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report my conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors:
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 LP.      TEXASBANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
#### In re: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation. Jesse Corralez; Dave Miller, et al., Plaintiffs, and The Milner Class, Intervenor—Appellant, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant—Appellee, and Farmers Group, Inc.; et al., Defendants.

No. 05-35812.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 2006.

Filed Oct. 26, 2006.

N. Robert Stoll, Esq., Timothy S. Dejong, Esq., Jennifer A. Wagner, Esq., *592Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting *&*Schlachter, PC, Portland, OR, Steven G. Zieff, Kenneth J. Sugarman, Esq., Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & True, Michael Rubin, Esq., Peder J.V. Thoreen, Esq., Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, James M. Finberg, Esq., Eve H. Cervantez, Esq., Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann *&*Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Todd Jackson, Jeffrey J. Lewis, Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson, PC, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Barry G. Reed, Esq., Zimmerman Reed, Scottsdale, AZ, Timothy J. Becker, Esq., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Richard J. Vangelisti, Esq., Vangelisti Law Offices, PC, Portland, OR, for Intervenor-Appellant.

Lee T. Paterson, Esq., Jessie A. Kohler, Winston *&*Strawn, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Barnes H. Ellis, Esq., James N. West-wood, Esq, Stoel Rives, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and RHOADES,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable John S. Rhoades, Sr., Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

On January 12, 2005, the district court issued an injunction to protect its judgment in a companion case to this appeal, *Miller, et al. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange,*466 F.3d 853 (9th Cir.2006). Now that we have reversed that judgment with respect to claims under Minnesota’s Fair Labor Standards Act, the district court’s denial of the Milner Class’s motion to vacate the injunction is reversed. We remand with instructions to the district court to vacate its injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Tekle TSEHAYE, Appellant v. WILLIAM C. SMITH & CO., INC., Appellee.

No. 05-7153.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2006.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 27, 2006.

Joann Patricia Myles, Law Office of Joann P. Myles, Largo, MD, Anne J.A. Gbenjo, The Gbenjo Law Group, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Connie Nora Bertram, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs by the parties and oral arguments of counsel. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

Tekle Tsehaye appeals the District Court’s rulings granting summary judgment for the defendant on Tsehaye’s discrimination and retaliation claims and dismissing Tsehaye’s assault and battery claim as barred by the District of Colum*902bia’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Finding no error in the District Court’s decisions, we affirm the judgments from which this appeal was taken, for the reasons stated by the District Court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that both parties’ motions to strike be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1829-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1829-DR), dated March 24, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         May 15, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Dakota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 24, 2009.

Benson, Cavalier, Eddy, McLean, Pembina, Rolette, and Wells Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Nancy Ward,

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-12166 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
3/18/2015 TDCJ Offender Details 

# lii^^i'iiftiiiii'iiirtiNiirfiihiHiirniTi'HiHl TDCJ Home 

# ^3, O^-o) New Offender Search 

# Offender Information Details

Return to Search list
SID Number: 03675062 TDCJ Number: 01402138 Name: SAUCEDO.JOE JR Race: H Gender: M DOB: 1969-01-06 Maximum Sentence Date: 2055-10-31 Current Facility: ALLRED Projected Release Date: 2055-10-31 Parole Eligibility Date: 2030-10-31 Offender Visitation Eligible: YES Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays andmultiple times perday 

### on visitation days. Because this information is subjectto change, family members and friends are encouragedto callthe unitpriorto travelingfor a visit.
SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: Scheduled Release Date: 

### Scheduled Release Type: Scheduled Release Location: 

## Parole ReviewInformation Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. Will be determined when release date is scheduled. Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense History: Offense ~f. Sentence ~„,,„. Case Sentence (YY

# Date °ffense Date County No. MM-DD) 1992-03-01 UNAUTH USE OF A MOT VEH 1992-03-03 HARRIS 625480 8-00-00 1994-02-09 DDLY WEAPON IN PEANL INSTITUTION 1995-05-08 POLK 13,605 10-00-00 http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=03675062 1/23/18/2015 TDCJ Offender Details 2005-10-30 AGG ROBBERY 2006-10-18 HARRIS 1045480 50-00-00
Return to Search list
The Texas Department ofCriminalJustice updates this information regularly to ensure that it is complete and accurate, howeverthis information can change quickly. Therefore, the information on this site maynot reflect the true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other information regarding an offender. For questions and comments, you may contact the Texas Department ofCriminalJustice, at (936) 

### 295-6371 or webadmindptdci.texas.gov. This information is made available to the public and law enforcementin the interestofpublic safety. Any unauthorized use ofthis information is forbidden and subject to criminalprosecution. New Offender Search TDCJ Home Page

http://offender.tdcj ,state.tx.us/OffenderSearctVoffenderDetail.action?sid=03675062 2/2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-12646

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 30, 2009.

Rosemary T. Cakmis, Federal Public Defender, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*837Peggy Morris Ronca, Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Servando Ferguson, a federal prisoner convicted of crack cocaine offenses, appeals the district court’s denial of his counseled 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 706 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, which lowered the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses.

Ferguson contends that he was not sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, but instead was sentenced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, and, for that reason *United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323*(11th Cir.2008), *cert. denied sub nom. McFadden v. United States,*— U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009), is inapplicable and he is entitled to § 3582 relief. To the contrary, Ferguson was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to § 4B1.1, instead of based on the drug quantity in § 2D1.1. The applicable base offense level under § 4B1.1 applied because it was greater than the § 2D1.1 base offense level. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b) (stating that the base offense level in § 4B1.1 applies as long as it is higher than the “offense level otherwise applicable,” such as the levels under § 2D1.1). Because Ferguson was sentenced based on the career offender guideline section, the base offense levels under § 2D1.1 “played no role in the calculation of [the guideline] range[ ],” and the lowering of the § 2D1.1 levels did not lower his guideline range, the *Moore*decision applies. *See Moore,*541 F.3d at 1327; *see also*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (stating that a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized where “the amendment ... is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision”).

Ferguson also contends that *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), rendered the Guidelines advisory in the § 3582 context. That argument is precluded by our decision in *United States v. Melvin,*556 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.2009). Ferguson asks that we hold his case in abeyance pending the resolution of the petition for hearing *en banc*in *United States v. Argro,*No. 08-14591. We decline to do so because the filing of a petition for hearing *en banc*has no effect on the precedential effect of any of our decisions.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-4(A)

I, J. Reid Porter, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IMC Global 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 the circumstances under which suchstatements 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows 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 registrantand 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 end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

       c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 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 theregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

       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: November 13, 2003

                          *J. ReidPorter*                                 J. Reid PorterExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerIMC Global Inc.

*Return to IMC Global Inc. Form10-Q*
(November 6, 2013)

#### Rokeya Begum Adbul, Appellant, v Ramon Lopez, Defendant, and Dikap L. Karmakar, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 120]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 9, 2012, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Dikap L. Karmakar which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Dikap L. Karmakar served the plaintiff with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216. Thus, the plaintiff was required to serve and file a timely note of issue or to move, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 *(see Colon v Papatolis,*95 AD3d 1160 [2012]; *Benitez v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co.,*24 AD3d 708 [2005]; *Sharpe v Osorio,*21 AD3d 467, 468 [2005]). The plaintiff did neither. To avoid dismissal of the action, the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 3216 *588[e]; *Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co.,*89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]; *Colon v Papatolis,*95 AD3d 1160 [2012]; *Picot v City of New York,*50 AD3d 757, 758 [2008]; *Serby v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr.,*34 AD3d 441, 442 [2006]). The plaintiffs unsubstantiated assertion that she entered into an arbitration agreement with Karmakar was insufficient to excuse the delay *(cf. Home Ins. Co. v Meyers Parking Sys.,*186 AD2d 497, 498 [1992]; *National Agric. Commodities v International Commodities Export Co.,*108 AD2d 735, 736 [1985]). Furthermore, even though the parties engaged in negotiations regarding arbitration, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was actively engaged in these negotiations for any significant amount of time prior to the default date or during the ensuing one-year period between the default date and Karmakar’s motion to dismiss *(see Kourtsounis v Chakrabarty,*254 AD2d 394, 395 [1998]; *Prado v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*237 AD2d 341 [1997]; *Sortino v Fisher,*20 AD2d 25, 29 [1963]; *cf. Katina, Inc. v Town of Hempstead,*13 AD3d 343, 344 [2004]; *Scarlett v McCarthy,*2 AD3d 623, 624 [2003]). In any event, the conclusory allegations contained in the verified complaint were insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action against Karmakar *(see Mooney v City of New York,*78 AD3d 795, 797 [2010]; *Koehler v Sei Young Choi,*49 AD3d 504, 505 [2008]; *Lugauer v Forest City Ratner Co.,*44 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Karmakar’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jason D. Liggins, Respondent.

Submitted October 26, 2009;

decided November 19, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 1213.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard P Ferris, Esq., 293 Genesee Street, Room 403, Mayro Building, Utica, New York 13501 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS OF SAN
JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST AS OF MARCH 31, 2000, AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME AND CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS FOR THE
THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,794,650
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,794,650
<PP&E>                                     133,275,528
<DEPRECIATION>                              86,409,491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,766,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,794,650
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,972,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,766,756
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,101,089
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,888,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,888,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,888,503
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>