alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**IMMUCELL CORPORATION**

**EXHIBIT 31**

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Michael F. Brigham, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImmuCell 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 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 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4.    I am 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 andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 33-8392]; 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:        March 26, 2009 

/s/ Michael F. Brigham 

Michael F. Brigham 

President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
@conference{1207221,
  author = {James Whipple and Dagistan Sahin and Yehonatan Zino},
  title = {RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEM UPGRADE FOR THE NBSR},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-25 04:05:00},
  publisher = {International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Kyoto, JP},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936060},
  language = {en},
}
Ex Parte Efrem G.

Casillas Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2014

No. 04-14-00081-CV

EX PARTE Efrem G. CASILLAS

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

On February 3, 2014, relator filed an original pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on February 25th, 2014.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25 th day of February, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1999CI01979, styled Efrem G. Casillas v. Imelda L. Arocha

, pending in

the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, William H. Shea, Jr., Chief Executive Officerof MainLine Management LLC, the generalpartner of BGH, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of BGH.
|                   |     | MAINLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|-------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|
|              |     |                                               |
| Date: May 1, 2007 |     | WILLIAM H. SHEA, JR.                               |
|              |     | William H. Shea, Jr.                               |
|              | * * | *Chief Executive Officer*                          |

 

----
H. Res. 25 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 4, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following committees of the House of 

Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Conaway. 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Thornberry. 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR: Ms. Foxx of 

North Carolina. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. McCaul. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Rogers of 

Alabama. 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Collins of Georgia. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Mr. Bishop of 

Utah. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: Mr. Jordan. 

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. Cole, Mr. Woodall, Mr. 

Burgess, Mrs. Lesko. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Mr. Lucas. 
2 

•HRES 25 EH 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Chabot. 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mr. Graves of Missouri. 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. David P. Roe 

of Tennessee. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chris A. Walker, Chief Financial 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:



| | (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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 14, 2010



/s/ Chris A. WalkerChris A. WalkerChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Olin, Appellant.

Submitted May 21, 2012;

decided February 7, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot.
#### ANNA DEVLIN, PLAINTIFF, v. GEORGE SURGENT, JAMES A. YOUNG AND WALTER SCOTT, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division

Decided December 4, 1953.

*Mr. Milton Schamach,*attorney for plaintiff *(Mr. J. Mortimer Bubenstein*of counsel).

*Mr. Nicholas Martini,*attorney for defendant George Surgent.

*Mr. Louis Nussman,*attorney for defendant James A. Young.

*592Grimshaw, J. S. C.

Plaintiff is the -widow of Edward L. Devlin who died on December 17, 1951. The defendant Surgent. is Chief Medical Examiner of the County of Passaic. Defendant Young is the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the City of Paterson and the defendant Scott is the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the State of blew Jersey.

Devlin died as a result of poisoning from illuminating gas. The medical examiner was summoned. He viewed the body, made an investigation and issued a death certificate in which he stated, among other things, that the death was the result of suicide. The plaintiff, taking exception to the conclusion reached by the medical examiner, seeks to have this court expunge from the certificate the conclusion of suicide on the ground that it was a mistake.

 There is no doubt of the power of the equity court to relieve against the consequences of mistake. *Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.*Camp, 124 *N. J. Eq.*403*(E. & A.*1938). But here there was no mistake as the word is used in this connection. Plaintiff concedes that the certificate accurately records the conclusion of the medical examiner. And there is no suggestion of fraud. Plaintiff, however, disagrees with the conclusion. She asks this court to substitute its judgment for that of the official and, in effect, now determine the cause of death. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant such relief.

Plaintiff relies heavily on the case of *Vanderbilt v. Mitchell,*72 *N. J. Eq.*910*(E. & A.*1907). A reading of that case discloses that it is not authority in support of plaintiff’s contention. There a birth certificate contained false statements made with fraudulent design. The aid of the court of equity was invoked on the ground of its inherent jurisdiction over frauds. Equity intervened to relieve against the consequence of the fraud and cancelled the fraudulent certificate. The two situations are not analogous.

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint. The motion will be granted.
EX-10.4

                         PROMISSORY NOTES EXTENSION

                                 TRI STAR
                      DIVERSIFIED VENTURES, L.L.C.


September 26, 2000


To: World Shopping Network, Inc.


Re:  Promissory Notes

Dear Gentlemen,

This letter is to serve as a notice that the loans between World
Shopping Network, Inc. and Tri Star Diversified Ventures, L.L.C., in
the amount of $45,000 have been hereby extended until November 1st, 2000.

Sincerely,


/s/  Charles Woods
Charles Woods, CEO
Tri Star Deversified Ventures
**EXHIBIT 31.1****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Donald Sargeant, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of AGASSIZ ENERGY, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 14, 2007 /s/ Donald Sargeant   Chairman and President   (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60454

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUOM VAN NGO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:13-CR-88-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Luom Van Ngo appeals the sentence imposed for his guilty plea 

conviction for mail fraud. He was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment and 

three years of supervised release and ordered to pay a $6,000 fine and $18,575 

in restitution. He contends that the district court clearly erred by applying a 

two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for an offense 

involving sophisticated means.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60454 Document: 00513111504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2015
No. 14-60454

2

Section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) provides for a two-level enhancement if the 

offense involved “sophisticated means.” § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). We review the 

district court’s factual finding that § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) applies for clear error. 

United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684, 695 (5th Cir. 2013). A factual finding is 

not clearly erroneous so long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. 

Id. at 692.

Ngo defrauded the fund reserved for victims of the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill by misrepresenting both that he was the owner of a commercial fishing 

business and that he incurred losses as a result of the oil spill. He obtained 

and then altered licenses for commercial fishing and created numerous 

fictitious business invoices to support his claim and conceal the fact that the 

commercial fishing business did not exist. He continued to use these 

fraudulent documents in additional attempts to file fraudulent claims. The 

investigating agent testified that most fraud cases related to the oil spill did 

not involve a fictitious business or supporting documentation, bringing Ngo’s 

conduct outside the scope of a simple fraud case. Therefore, the district court’s 

finding that this offense involved sophisticated means was plausible in light of 

the record as a whole and not clearly erroneous. See Valdez, 726 F.3d at 692, 

695. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-60454 Document: 00513111504 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2015
the same are now known or unknown, which he ever had, now has, or may claim to have, upon or byreason of the occurrence of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever up to the date of his executionof this Agreement, including without limitation any claims or compensation arising from any claimsfor survivorship or other benefits under the Plan and the Participation Agreement, anyrepresentations or statements made regarding any benefits available under the Plan and theParticipation Agreement, any claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, anyclaim for breach of any contract, and all relief associated with any of such claims, including anylost wages or benefits (present or future), interest, emotional distress or any other form ofeconomic loss or injuries resulting from any action of any released party herein, all claims forliquidated, double, punitive or treble damages, as well as legal fees or costs incurred by Employeein the pursuit of or related in any way to the claims or allegations made against the Bank, thePlan or its or their fiduciaries, officers, directors or employees.6. Responsibility for Taxes. Employee agrees that Employee shall be responsible for thepayment of all obligations owed by Employee to a taxing authority as a result of Employee’s receiptof the Special Retention Award. Employee acknowledges that any references to taxes or interest inconnection with the calculation of the Special Retention Award are merely estimates used by theparties to determine the amount of the Special Retention Award and do not represent the actualamount of taxes and/or interest Employee may owe to a taxing authority upon receipt of the SpecialRetention Award.7. Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings given tothem in the Plan and the Participation Agreement. The invalidity or unenforceability of anyparticular provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement, andthis Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision hasbeen omitted. Except to the extent pre-empted by federal law, this Agreement and Employee’s rightsunder it shall be construed and determined in accordance with the laws of the State of NorthCarolina. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed anoriginal, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. No change,modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same be inwriting and signed by the parties.**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.         EMPLOYEE   BANK OF GRANITE           /s/ D. Mark Stephens    By: /s/ Jerry A. Felts   D. Mark Stephens   Name: Jerry A. Felts      Title: Chief Financial Officer
*

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS

July 7, 2015

ABELACOSTA, CLERK

NO.

IN THE

RT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CARL CRAVER

Petitioner

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Respondent

PD-0825-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/6/2015 12:35:54 PM

Accepted 7/7/2015 3:20:41 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

Petition is in Cause No. 1272901D from

Criminal District Court No. Two of Tarrant County, Texas,

and Cause No. 02-14-00076-CR in the

Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas

MOTION TO FILE ENLARGED PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Anthony Carl Craver ("Petitioner"), who files his Motion to File

Enlarged Petition for Discretionary Review pursuant to Rule 9.4(i)(4) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in support would respectfully show unto this

honorable Court the following:

Craver v. State -

Motion to File Enlarged Petition for Discretionary Review Page 1 of 3
Petitioner has submitted concurrent with this Motion his Petition for

Discretionary Review. Exclusive of the pages containing the caption, identity of

parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of

authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statement of

jurisdiction,statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service, certification,

certificate of compliance, and appendix, the Petition contains 5621 words, or 1,121

words over the page limit set forth in Rule 9.4(i)(2)(E) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(E).

The additional 1,121 words are necessary and should be allowed by this Court

for the following reasons:

1) the complexity of the legal and factual issues raised by the circumstances

of this case; and

2) were counsel required to omit 1,121 words of argument and analysis from

the instant Petition, the effectiveness of his representation might be severely

impacted and would interfere with the orderly administration of justice.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner Anthony Carl Craver prays that this

Court grant this Motion in all respects, and allows him to file his Enlarged Petition

submitted concurrently with this Motion. Petitioner prays for any further relief to

Craver v. State -

Motion to File Enlarged Petitionfor Discretionary Review Page2 of 3
which he may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Abe Factor

Abe Factor

TBN: 06768500

Factor, Campbell & Collins

Attorneys at Law

5719 Airport Freeway

Fort Worth, Texas 76117

Phone: (817) 222-3333

Fax: (817) 222-3330

Email: lawfactor@yahoo.com

Attorneys for Petitioner

Anthony Carl Craver

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has

been furnished to counsel for the State's Prosecuting Attorney and the Tarrant

County DistrictAttorneyby a manner compliantwith the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, on this 6th day of Tuly_, 2015.

/s/Abe Factor

Abe Factor

Craver v. State -

Motion to File Enlarged Petition for Discretionary Review Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Indrakumar Goohya, Petitioner, v Mary Ann Walsh-Tozer, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 452]

Proceeding *799Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Mary Ann Walsh-Tozer, as Commissioner of the Rockland County Department of Mental Health, dated June 3, 2004, which rejected the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, found that the petitioner was guilty of patient abuse, professional misconduct, and sexual harassment, and terminated the petitioner from his employment with the Rockland County Department of Mental Health.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176 [1978]; *Matter of Maher v Cade,*15 AD3d 489 [2005]). Further, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222 [1974]; *Matter of Maher v Cade, supra).*

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either not properly before the Court or without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ, concur.