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

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John N. Hanna, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Yocream
International, 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
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15(e)) 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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is likely to
materially affect the registrants 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
registrant'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
control over financial reporting.


Date:    September 15, 2003                 By:    /s/  John N. Hanna

                                            John N. Hanna, Chairman of the
                                            Board, and Chief Executive
                                            Officer
#### Tracy Massop et al., Appellants, v Inventors Helpline/Patent and Trademark Institute, Respondent.

Submitted October 4, 2010;

decided November 23, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
- 4136_001
- 4135_001
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHARLENE BARKER
, Appellant,

v.

COMPOUNDING DOCS, INC.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3662

[ February 14, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Sandra Perlman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 003589

.

Kenneth S. Mair of Law Offices of Kenneth Mair, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Elaine D. Walter and Joseph M. Winsby of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo, Coral Gables, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affir med

.

G ROSS

, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12679]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before May 16, 2009.
    Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments 
concerning the significance of these properties under the National 
Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States 
Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National 
Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other 
carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 
1201 Eye St., NW., 8th Floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-
6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by June 17, 2009.

J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks 
Program.

ARKANSAS

Washington County

Butterfield Overland Mail Route Fayetteville Segments Historic 
District, W. of AR 265 in Lake Fayetteville Park, Fayetteville, 
09000456

GEORGIA

Fulton County

Collier Heights Historic District, Bounded approximately by Hamilton 
E. Holmes Dr. on the E., Donald Lee Hollowell Pkwy. on the N., U.S. 
285 on the W, U.S. 20, Atlanta, 09000457

Polk County

Rockmart Downtown Historic District, Roughly bounded by Water, 
Beauregard, Narble, and Elm Sts., Rockmart, 09000458

ILLINOIS

Cook County

East Village Historic District, (Ethnic (European) Historic 
Settlement in the city of Chicago (1860-1930) Bounded by Division 
St. and Chicago, Hermitage and Damen Aves., Chicago, 09000459

KANSAS

Sedgwick County

Broadview Hotel, 400 W. Douglas Ave., Wichita, 09000460
McLean, Elizabeth, House, (Residential Resources of Wichita, 
Sedgwick County, Kansas 1870-1957) 2359 N. McLean Blvd., Wichita, 
09000461

PENNSYLVANIA

Berks County

Douglass, George, House, 19 Old Philadelphia Pike, Amity Township, 
09000462

Lackawanna County

Madison, James, School, (Educational Resources of Pennsylvania MPS) 
528 Quincy Ave., Scranton, 09000463

SOUTH CAROLINA

Richland County

South Carolina Memorial Garden, 1919 Lincoln St., Columbia, 09000464

[FR Doc. E9-12679 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         359,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,309,927
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,308,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,634,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,655,142
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     979,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,634,834
<SALES>                                        220,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               220,257
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               101,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,006
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.80
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-15953

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 19, 2009.

Stewart Glenn Abrams, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Carol E. Herman, Jeanne Marie Mullen-hoff, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James Walker, through counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Walker’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Walker, who was sentenced based on his status as a career offender, acknowledges that, in *United States v. Moore,*541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008), *cert. denied, McFadden v. United States,*— U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009), *and cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1601, 173 L.Ed.2d 689 (2009), we held that defendants whose sentencing ranges were based on their career offender status are not eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706. Walker asserts, however, that *Moore*was wrongly decided, and, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court should have reevaluated the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

“Under the well-established prior panel precedent rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first panel to address an issue is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all *900subsequent panels unless and until the first panel’s holding is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” *Smith v. GTE Corp.,*236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n. 8 (11th Cir.2001). Thus, we affirm the denial of Walker’s § 3582(c)(2) motion in accordance with *Moore.*541 F.3d at 1330.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick W. Hurley, Chief Financial Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sport-Haley, 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 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:



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):



Date:
October 13, 2004

|/s/PATRICK W. HURLEYPatrick W. Hurley
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2847 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2847

            To regulate the volume of audio on commercials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2009

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To regulate the volume of audio on commercials.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial Advertisement Loudness 
Mitigation Act'' or the ``CALM Act''.

SEC. 2. RULEMAKING ON LOUD COMMERCIALS REQUIRED.

    (a) Rulemaking Required.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe 
pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) a 
regulation that is limited to incorporating by reference the 
``Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining 
Audio Loudness for Digital Television'' (A/85), and any successor 
thereto, approved by the Advanced Television Systems Committee, only 
insofar as such recommended practice concerns the transmission of 
commercial advertisements by a television broadcast station, cable 
operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor.
    (b) Implementation.--
            (1) Effective date.--The Federal Communications Commission 
        shall prescribe that the regulation adopted pursuant to 
        subsection (a) shall become effective 1 year after the date of 
        its adoption.
            (2) Waiver.--For any television broadcast station, cable 
        operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor 
        that demonstrates that obtaining the equipment to comply with 
        the regulation adopted pursuant to subsection (a) would result 
        in financial hardship, the Federal Communications Commission 
        may grant a waiver of the effective date set forth in paragraph 
        (1) for 1 year and may renew such waiver for 1 additional year.
    (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            (1) the term ``television broadcast station'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 325 of the Communications 
        Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325); and
            (2) the terms ``cable operator'' and ``multi-channel video 
        programming distributor'' have the meanings given such terms in 
        section 602 of Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522).
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linwood LYONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6150.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

Linwood Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*364PER CURIAM:

Linwood Lyons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lyons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1998 and Consolidated Statement
of  Operations  for the 9 months  ended June 30,  1998,  and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              96
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   339
<PP&E>                                          10,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,877)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,673
<BONDS>                                          9,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              224
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,565
<SALES>                                          4,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,281
<CGS>                                            4,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                394
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,607
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32-1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Financial Report of NoFire Technologies, Inc. on Form
10QSB/A for the Quarter ended 11/30/04 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Sam Gottfried, Chief Executive
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:

(1) The Form 10QSB/A  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10QSB/A  fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: April  29 , 2005

Name  /s/ Sam Gottfried (CEO)


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 NoFire Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by NoFire Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF FULL HOUSE RESORTS, INC.



|                                        |  |                              
|--------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                      |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|Deadwood Gulch Resort and Gaming Corp.  |  | South Dakota                 
|Full House Mississippi, LLC             |  | Mississippi                  
|Full House Subsidiary, Inc.             |  | Delaware                     
|Full House Subsidiary of Nevada, Inc.   |  | Nevada                       
|Gaming Entertainment, LLC               |  | Delaware                     
|Gaming Entertainment (Delaware), LLC*   |  | Delaware                     
|Gaming Entertainment (Michigan), LLC*   |  | Delaware                     
|Gaming Entertainment (California), LLC* |  | Delaware                     

---

|* | 50% owned
|- | ---------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         210,528
<SECURITIES>                                     1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               334,692
<PP&E>                                       5,309,927
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,657,797)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,525,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,818
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     930,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,525,125
<SALES>                                        391,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                258881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (8,725)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 79,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,044
<EPS-BASIC>                                      15.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    15.46


</TABLE>