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

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stephen C. Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of GelStat Corporation, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of GelStat 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 officer(s) 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 ensure 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

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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in one case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant'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 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 control over
financial reporting.

                                                          /s/ Stephen C. Roberts
                                                              Stephen C. Roberts
                                 Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer

                                                                  April 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 23.2



[NSA Letterhead]



CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



We hereby consent to the references in this Form 10-K/A of Plains Exploration & Production Company, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in such Form 10-K/A, to our reserve reports to
the interest of Plains Exploration & Production Company and its subsidiaries (collectively the Company), relating to the estimated quantities of certain of the Companys proved reserves of oil and gas and present values thereof
for certain periods.



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/    J. Carter Henson, Jr.J. Carter Henson, Jr. Senior Vice President




Houston, Texas

June 11, 2004
#### Barbara Cavitch, Appellant, v Pedro A. Mateo et al., Respondents.

[871 NYS2d 372]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, West-chester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered November 8, 2007, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

The plaintiff pedestrian was crossing Ashford Avenue in the Village of Ardsley, when she was struck by a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Sterling A. Mateo (hereinafter the driver) and owned by the defendant Pedro A. Mateo. The plaintiff *593established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting evidence showing that the driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1151 (a) by failing to yield the right of way to her as she proceeded across the roadway of Ashford Avenue in a crosswalk. The evidence submitted by the defendants in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]). Notably, the driver, in opposition to the motion, did not submit his own affidavit setting forth his version of how the accident occurred. Moreover, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the motion was not premature. The defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to show that discovery may lead to relevant evidence and that the facts essential to, justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff *(see Gasis v City of New York,*35 AD3d 533 [2006]). The “mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” *(id.*at 534-535). Skelos, J.P, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., cpncur.
#### Levi WOODERTS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION SEAGOVILLE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-10871

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 30, 2006.

Levi Wooderts, Jr., Seagoville, TX, pro se.

Stephen P. Fahey, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Levi Wooderts, Jr., federal prisoner #29639-077, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Wooderts argues that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) improperly denied him credit on his federal sentence beginning from the time of his arrest by state law enforcement officials and that, following the dismissal of state charges and lifting of a state parole violator warrant, he was in the sole custody of the federal Government. Wooderts has failed to show *391that the state custody was interrupted, and he was not entitled to credit on his federal sentence for the time that he was in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. *See United States v. Brown,*758 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir.1985). With the benefit of liberal construction, Wooderts also argues that the BOP failed to consider properly his request for a nunc pro tunc designation that would have effectuated the concurrent running of his federal and state sentences. Given the district court’s clarification that Wooderts’s sentence was to be served consecutively to any state sentence, the BOP did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Wooderts’s request. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 3584(a)-(b), 3621(b).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2486 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6-Dichlorotoluene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6- 

Dichlorotoluene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,6-DICHLOROTOLUENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.82 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2,6-Dichlorotoluene) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2486 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2488 

To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium hypophosphite. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium hypophosphite. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SODIUM HYPOPHOSPHITE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Sodium hypophosphite (CAS 

No. 10039–56–2) (provided 

for in subheading 

2835.10.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2488 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00789-CR

NO. 03-14-00790-CR

NO. 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

NO. B-13-0883-SB, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a 

brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies of 

the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and 

file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate 

record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely 

filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial court to 

provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide written 
verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was provided, on or 

before May 18, 2015. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on May 6, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Do Not Publish
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JAMES DAY SHANKLIN, III

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2022

- 4016

June 7 , 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Susan St. John

, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. Shelhart,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY

, LaROSE , and LABRIT , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1997, CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CASINO MAGIC CORP. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      20,986,510
<SECURITIES>                                10,629,405
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,781,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,007,119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,740,787
<PP&E>                                     321,803,055
<DEPRECIATION>                              57,809,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             372,704,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       51,031,097
<BONDS>                                    252,541,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       357,221
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,097,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               372,704,817
<SALES>                                    261,474,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           261,474,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              236,919,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,049,777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          31,384,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,780,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,935,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         24,554,753
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,249,208)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
#### Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Appellant, v American Buddha, Respondent.

Submitted January 10, 2011;

decided January 18, 2011

*See*609 F3d 30.

Motion by American Association of Publishers et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on consideration of the certified question herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12201]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee H--Clinical Groups.
    Date: July 20-21, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Timothy C. Meeker, MD, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 8103, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 594-1279. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ff2fafaf4faedebdff2fef6f3b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ae7efefe1eff8fecae7ebe3e6a4e4e3e2a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-12201 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-53922, 33-53924, 33-53926, 33-93796, 333-68427, 333-68417, 333-75927,
333-75929 and 333-55330 of Microtest, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated
January 24, 2001, except for Note 6, as to which the date is March 20, 2001,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Microtest, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

March 30, 2001
#### Daisy HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. REED RUBBER COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

No. 83-0922C(3).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

Sept. 4, 1984.

Nancy M. Watkins, Wiley, Craig, Armbruster, Wilburn & Mills, St. Louis, Mo.; for plaintiff.

Amy S. Rubin, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

HUNGATE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s August 16, 1984, motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s response was filed on August 31, 1984.

Jurisdiction in this case is based on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as to Count I, which charges defendant with sexual discrimination in employment. Plaintiff also charges defendant with assault and battery (Count II), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count III), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV); the Court has exercised pendent jurisdiction as to these claims.

In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was hired by defendant as a warehouse worker, and was promoted to the position of supervisor in March of 1980. Beginning in June of 1981, she was subjected to sexual harassment by a male employee, despite her efforts to terminate his attention and despite her requests to defendant to take appropriate action. As a result of defendant’s failure to take appropriate action, plaintiff alleges, she was eventually demoted to another position.

Defendant argues that Counts II, III, and IV are barred by Mo.Rev.Stat. § 287.-120, which allegedly provides plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. As noted in *Todd v. Goostree,*493 S.W.2d 411, 416 (Mo.App.1973), Missouri Compensation Law “does not supplement the common law but is wholly substitutional in character and creates entirely new rights and remedies.” Here, the injuries complained of occurred at plaintiff’s place of employment and arose out of and in the scope of plaintiff’s employment. *See Zahn v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.,*655 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Mo.App.1983). Based upon the record, the Court finds that Missouri Compensation Law excludes this action. *See Hollrah v. Freidrich,*634 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo.App.1982).

As to Count I, the Court rejects defendant’s argument of collateral estoppel based on the unappealed administrative decision that plaintiff had no compelling reason to leave her work and that she did not leave with good cause attributable to her work or to her employer. The issues raised in this employment discrimination suit are not identical to the matters determined by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commis*1457sion. Accordingly, defendant cannot prevail on its motion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         638,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               706,268
<PP&E>                                       8,377,319
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,012,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,070,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,070,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,070,968
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               487,196
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  427,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,493
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-403-CR

CHARLES THOMAS ALLEN	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	On July 20, 2004, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for bail pending appeal.  Appellant’s notice of appeal from this order was due by August 19, 2004.2  The notice of appeal was not filed until September 1, 2004; thus it was untimely.3

	Because the notice of appeal was untimely, we sent a letter to Appellant requesting a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, as it appeared we lacked jurisdiction.  We received no response.

	A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction.4  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal.5  Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.6

									PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P.47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 21, 2004