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

I, John N. Hanna certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of YoCream
International, Inc. (the small business issuer);

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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer 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)) and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuers 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 small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (small business issuers fourth quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
small business issuers 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 small business issuers internal
controls over financial reporting.


/s/ John N. Hanna                                    Dated:  June 14, 2005
-----------------
John N. Hanna, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                      REDHOOK ALE BREWERY, INCORPORATED
                FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I am the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Redhook Ale
Brewery, Incorporated, a Washington corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering
this certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2003 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Form 10-K").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 29, 2004



                                               BY:   /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                   David J. Mickelson
                                                   Executive Vice President,
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   and Chief Operating Officer
#### Jihad Anthony ZOGHEIB, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. Bancorp, Inc., a foreign banking corporation, doing business as U.S. Bank, Defendant-Appellee, v. COAST HOTELS & CASINOS, INC., a Nevada corporation doing business as Barbary Coast Hotel & Casino, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-16683.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 2009.*

Filed May 21, 2009.

Tyttan M. Sirotock, Henderson, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jihad Anthony Zogheib, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

*603Denise Barton, Akke Levin, Morris, Pickering & Peterson, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bancorp, Inc.

Before: HUG, HAWKINS and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jihad Anthony Zogheib appeals from a district court order denying his motion to set aside a stipulated dismissal of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Zogheib concedes that the named parties are diverse, but contends that the citizenship of fictitious defendants destroyed diversity and deprived the district court of jurisdiction. But Zogheib never sought to substitute named defendants for those sued under fictitious names, and the citizenship of these fictitious defendants has “no jurisdictional significance.” *See Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc.,*311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir.2002). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Zogheib’s attorney had authority to enter the dismissal and it did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion.1*Cf. Surety Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Williams,*729 F.2d 581, 583 (8th Cir.1984); *Harrop v. W. Airlines, Inc.,*550 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir.1977). Zogheib argues that the court erred by considering his attorney’s authority to enter the dismissal instead of whether there was mutual intent tó dismiss. The fact that both parties’ attorneys signed the stipulation was evidence of mutual intent to dismiss. *Cf. Eitel v. McCool,*782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We grant appellee’s unopposed motion to strike the portions of the reply brief and appellant’s supplemental excerpts of record presenting new and irrelevant arguments, but deny the motion for monetary sanctions. *See*Fed R.App. P. 28(c), 30; Circuit R. 28-1(a), 30-1.8, 30-2; *United States v. W.R. Grace,*504 F.3d 745, 766 (9th Cir.2007).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2721 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Ethene, tetrafluoro-oxidized, 

polymerized reduced, methyl esters, reduced. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. LAUTENBERG 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 Ethene, 

tetrafluoro-oxidized, polymerized reduced, methyl esters, 

reduced. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHENE, TETRAFLUORO-OXIDIZED, POLYM4 ERIZED REDUCED, METHYL ESTERS, RE5 DUCED. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.19 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2721 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IROBOT CORPORATION, 

Appellant

v.

SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, SHARKNINJA 

MANAGEMENT LLC, SHARKNINJA SALES 

COMPANY, 

Appellees

______________________

2022-1233

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00733.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-1233 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2022
2 IROBOT CORPORATION V. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

May 5, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 5, 2022

Case: 22-1233 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2022
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2515 

To suspend temporarily the duty on silver sodium hydrogen zirconium 

phosphate. 

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 silver sodium hydrogen 

zirconium phosphate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SILVER SODIUM HYDROGEN ZIRCONIUM PHOS4 PHATE. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Silver sodium hydrogen zirconium phosphate (CAS No. 

265647–11–8) (provided for 

in subheading 2843.29.01) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2515 IS

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 6, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-01066-CV

____________

BOBBY SHAFER, Appellant

V.

ORR REALTY CORPORATION, OASIS CAR CARE and 

WEST HOUSTON AUTO STORAGE, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1002556

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

According to information provided to this court, this appeal is from a judgment 

signed December 6, 2011. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for 

preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements 

to pay for the record. 

On February 8, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 
2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with 

proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant has not provided this court 

with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.
#### Fessehaie Asmare MITIKU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 05-2423.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 13, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.

Solomon Bekele, Law Offices of Solomon *&*Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

*236Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Fessehaie Asmare Mitiku, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mitiku challenges the finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will reverse this decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We have reviewed the evidence of record, and conclude that substantial evidence supports the holding that Mitiku failed to show past persecution or the well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (same).

Moreover, since Mitiku cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of removal. *See Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004) (“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same— an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).

We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Mitiku fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). Mitiku failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration judge.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### NML Capital, Respondent-Appellant, and Montreux Partners et al., Respondents, v Republic of Argentina, Appellant-Respondent.

Decided October 14, 2010

Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"Vision and Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XKKLrLyIuY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/vision-and-mission\/\">Vision and Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/vision-and-mission\/embed\/#?secret=XKKLrLyIuY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Vision and Mission” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"XKKLrLyIuY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GARY LANDERS,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-14-00100-CR

Appeal from the

158th District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# F-2010-1639-B)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jetone Jones, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 902]

*1293Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered October 8, 2010. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered February 8, 2013, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings (103 AD3d 1215 [2013]). The proceedings were held and completed.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to rule on defendant’s motion to inspect the grand jury minutes and to dismiss the indictment due to allegedly defective grand jury proceedings, and we rejected defendant’s remaining contentions *(People v Jones,*103 AD3d 1215 [2013], *lv dismissed*21 NY3d 944 [2013]). Upon remittal, the court inspected the grand jury minutes and denied defendant’s motion for disclosure of the minutes and to dismiss the indictment. We affirm the judgment. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to review the grand jury minutes *(see generally Matter of Lungen v Kane,*88 NY2d 861, 862-863 [1996]; *People v Douglas,*288 AD2d 859, 859 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 681 [2001]) and, having reviewed the grand jury minutes, we conclude that the court properly refused to dismiss the indictment. The minutes demonstrate that the prosecutor properly instructed the grand jurors and that the proceedings were not otherwise defective *(see generally People v Hebert,*68 AD3d 1530, 1533-1534 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 841 [2010]). Present-Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Bindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CEO

In connection with the Annual Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Flores, Chief Executive Officer 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:

To the best of
my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 25, 2009 |  |                        
|                         | 
|                         |  | /s/ James C. Flores    
|                         |  | James C. Flores        
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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 required by Section 906, 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Taro, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2688 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Triadimefon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BURR 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 Triadimefon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRIADIMEFON. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.33 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Free’’ and inserting ‘‘0.5%’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

10 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

12 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2688 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jazzmone Brown, Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 2010;

decided September 16, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David C. Schopp, Esq., the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., 237 Main Street, Suite 1602, Buffalo, New York 14203 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.