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

Certifications

SECTION 302

I, David Stark, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Stem Cell Therapy
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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the condensed consolidated financial condition, consolidated results of operations and consolidated 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a  15(f) and 15d  15(f) for the registrant 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;

c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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 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/ David Stark |  | President |  |  |  | August 18, 2008
|David Stark     |  |           |  |  |  |
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 SCHLUMBERGER 2001 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 Second Amendment 

Schlumberger Limited, a Curaçao corporation, having heretofore adopted the Schlumberger 2001 Stock Option Plan (the
“Plan”), and having reserved the right under Section 12 thereof to amend the Plan, does hereby amend Section 3(a) of the Plan by adding the following sentence to the end thereto, effective as of June 30, 2013: 

“The foregoing notwithstanding, with respect to an employee who has received a Stock Option and whose employment is transferred
directly and without interruption to a corporation, limited liability company or other entity (a ‘One Subsea Company’) pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of that certain Master Formation Agreement by and among Cameron
International Corporation, the Company, Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Schlumberger B.V., dated as of
 November 14, 2012, and the related agreements contemplated therein, such employee’s employment with the Company shall include
employment with a One Subsea Company for all purposes under the Plan (other than eligibility for new grants), and any Stock Options shall not be affected by such employee’s subsequent transfer of employment directly and without interruption
from a One Subsea Company to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, from the Company or any of its Subsidiaries to a One Subsea Company or between One Subsea Companies.”
#### SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE POUR PARTICIPATIONS INDUSTRIELLES ET COMMERCIALES S. A. et al. v. McGRATH et al. (REMINGTON RAND, Inc., Intervenor).

Civ. No. 4360-48.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Jan. 10, 1950.

See also 9 F.R.D. 263.

*681Whiteford, Hart, Carmody & Wilson, Washington, D. C., John J. Wilson, Washington, D. C., Donald Hiss, Spencer Gordon, Washington, D. C., attorneys for plaintiff.

Harold I. Baynton, Deputy Dir. Office of Alien Property, Washington, D. C., David Schwartz, Special Asst. to Atty. Gen., Sidney B. Jacoby, Chicago Ill., Paul E. McGraw, New York City, David A. Wilson, Jr., Washington, D. C., Olga H. Hoffmann, Washington, D. C., Anthony W. Gross, Washington, D. C., for defendants.

Homer Cummings, J. Edward Burroughs, Jr., George C. Pendleton, Washington, D. C., Frank C. Sterck, Washington, D. C., attorneys for Intervenor.

BAILEY, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the emergent motion of the plaintiff to be excused, on the ground of foreign law or foreign privilege, from answering, through Hans Sturzenegger, the questions which this Court, by order dated November 7, 1949, directed that Hans Sturzenegger answer, and after hearing the parties, it is hereby

Ordered that the motion of the plaintiff be and it is hereby denied and that the said questions be answered. The ground for this order is not that the questions have been ordered to be answered, but that foreign law or foreign privilege is not a valid excuse for a refusal to answer the questions.
----

----

| /s/  Oscar M. Bean              |   | /s/  Gary L. Hinkle         |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Oscar M. Bean                             |   | Gary L. Hinkle                        |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  Frank A. Baer, III         |   | /s/  Gerald W. Huffman      |
| Frank A. Baer, III                        |   | Gerald W. Huffman                     |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  Dewey F. Bensenhaver, M.D. |   | /s/  H. Charles Maddy, III  |
| Dewey F. Bensenhaver, M.D.                |   |  H. Charles Maddy, III           |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  James M. Cookman           |   | /s/  Duke A. McDaniel       |
| James M. Cookman                          |   | Duke A. McDaniel                      |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  John W. Crites             |   | /s/  Ronald F. Miller       |
| John W. Crites                            |   |  Ronald F. Miller                |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  Patrick N. Frye            |   | /s/  G. R. Ours, Jr.        |
| Patrick N. Frye                           |   | G. R. Ours, Jr.                       |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  James P. Geary, II         |   | /s/  Phoebe Fisher Heishman |
| James P. Geary, II                        |   | Phoebe Fisher Heishman                |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  Georgette R. George        |   | /s/  Charles S. Piccirillo  |
| Georgette R. George                       |   | Charles S. Piccirillo                 |
|                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/  Thomas J. Hawse, III       |   |                                  |
| Thomas J. Hawse, III                      |   |                                  |
#### EBERHART v. CRYSTAL SPRINGS BLEACHERY.

Civil Action No. 125.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

June 10, 1941.

P. H. Thach, and Robert C. Hunt, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Joseph C. Caldwell, Jr., of Rossville, Ga., for plaintiff.

Lynch, Phillips, Hall & Allison, by M. M. Allison, Jr., all of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

This case was heard by a jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of Twenty Thousand ($20,000) Dollars.

The defendant has filed a motion asking that the court now direct a verdict in its behalf, and has also filed a motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant’s motion asking for a directed verdict on the ground that the motion contained grounds not used at the trial. I think this motion to strike is not well taken and it is overruled.

The plaintiff files a motion to strike the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that it was filed too late. It appears that on the date of the verdict a general entry was made of the verdict but that no judgment thereon has gone down yet. Evidently, judgment is to be entered after action on these motions.

Under these conditions I think the motion for a new trial was filed in time as there is an allowance of ten days from the date of the entry of the judgment. Rule 59 (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. This motion to strike is overruled.

After an attentive study of the briefs and the law in such cases and a full review of all the evidence, I do not feel easy to let this verdict stand.

*779It is my judgment that a verdict should not be directed and the defendant’s motion that I now direct a verdict is overruled.

I think a new trial should be had and I put it upon the ground that the verdict is so excessive that it can not be corrected by a suggestion of a remittitur.

Therefore, the motion for a new trial is granted.
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 Quarterly Report of ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), J. Timothy Bryan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company (principal executive officer) and
Michael P. Corkery, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:



|/s/J. TIMOTHY BRYANJ. Timothy Bryan Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)May 12, 2008 |  | /s/MICHAEL P. CORKERYMichael P. Corkery Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)May 12, 2008
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited and will be retained by ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### HOTEL GEORGE V v. McLEAN et al. WADHAMS v. SAME. FINN v. SAME (two cases).

Nos. 82328, 87535, 89550, 89551.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Feb. 21, 1940.

Rudolph B. Behrend, of Washington, D. C., for Hotel George V.

Arthur Lambert, of Washington, D. C., for William H. Wadhams.

Harold P. Ganss, of Washington, D. G, for Jack Finn and Martin Finn.

Neil Burkinshaw, of Washington, D. C., for Edward B. McLean.

LAWS, Justice.

Upon consideration of the motion filed herein to consolidate the above-entitled causes for the limited purpose of determining the issue of insanity raised by the defendant in each of said causes, and it appearing to the Court that such consolidation is to the best interest of all parties concerned upon the basis of submitting to the jury upon such consolidation of certain limited questions in reference to such sanity, it is, by the Court, this 21st day of February, 1940,

Ordered that the said causes be, and the same hereby are, consolidated for trial upon the following issues with respect to the sanity of the defendant:

Was the defendant, Edward B. McLean, mentally competent to make a valid contract at all times between January 1, 1928 and May 29, 1933?

If the answer to the foregoing question is “No”, was the defendant mentally incompetent at all *times between,*the aforesaid period or was he competent to make a valid contract at some time or times during said period?

In the event you find the defendant was competent to make a valid contract at some time or times and incompetent to make a valid contract at some time or times during the same period, state at what time or times he was competent and at what time or times you find he was not competent.

It is further ordered that the plaintiffs shall be bound by the finding of the Court and jury in answer to the foregoing questions upon such consolidation, insofar as any issue of mental incapacity to make the contract sued on by each plaintiff was concerned.

It is further ordered that the remaining issues raised by the pleadings in the several suits hereby consolidated for this limited purpose be, and the same hereby are, reserved for separate admission after the final judgment of this Court is rendered upon the consolidation hereby made.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 21, 2015

Order 

July 21, 2015

151429(32)

TAMARA FILAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v

DEARBORN HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT 

NO. 7,

Respondent-Appellee.

SC: 151429

COA: 325172

State Tenure Comm: 13-010933-ED

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the petitioner-appellant to suspend the 

filing due date of her reply until the Court addresses the motion to strike is DENIED. 

Petitioner-appellant shall have seven days from the date of this order to submit a reply in 

accordance with the administrative order dated June 30, 2015.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Franco Perrotta, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Legend Marketing
      Corp. for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 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 Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Legend Marketing Corp.                                                  

Dated: June 12, 2009



| | /s/
      Franco Perrotta                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Franco Perrotta                                        
| | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director           
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial
| | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)              

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 Legend Marketing
Corp. and will be retained by Legend Marketing Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00021-CV

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Michael and Theresa/s

Michael and Theresa HAYES,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV00284

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received 

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellee’s brief 

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to September 7, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Albert Lopez

Law Offices of Albert Lopez

14310 Northbrook Dr., Suite 200

San Antonio, TX 78232-5049

David Lawrence Earl

Earl and Connelly, PLLC

601 N. West Loop 410

Suite 390

San Antonio, TX 78216
[974 NYS2d 780]

#### In the Matter of James J. Harrington, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

November 12, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Eileen J. Shields*of counsel), for petitioner.

*202No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent James J. Harrington was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on December 24, 1964. At all times relevant to the instant proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) seeks an order under Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 (g) disbarring respondent on the ground that, following his suspension under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iv), he has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement for over six months since the date of suspension. The Committee notes that there is no record of respondent having filed with the Court or the Committee an affidavit of compliance with the suspension order as required under 22 NYCRR 603.13 (f).

By order entered July 14, 2011, this Court granted the Committee’s motion seeking an order immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of the Court, under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iv), based upon his noncooperation with a Committee investigation into his professional conduct and his failure or refusal to pay a judgment *(see*88 AD3d 31 [1st Dept 2011]).

Respondent’s misconduct included his failure to satisfy a Civil Court judgment a client obtained against him following the arbitration of a fee dispute. Additionally, respondent failed to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into his conduct.

Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s July 14, 2011 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion to disbar respondent without further notice, under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), is granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately *(see Matter of Karlick,*108 AD3d 81 [1st Dept 2013]; *Matter of Claffey,*99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]).

Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Ahdrias, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ., concur.

*203Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                           2,727
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,494
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                              3,367
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             33,005
<PP&E>                                             534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,955
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                      51,302
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               1,337
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,955
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                3,251
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             2,921
<COMMISSIONS>                                   14,490
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   13,191
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,806
<COMPENSATION>                                  25,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,543
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,543
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
        

</TABLE>
Mario A. Trevino

Attorney at Law

315 South Main Street • San Antonio, Texas 78204

Office: (210) 226-0026 • Fax: (210) 226-8402 • Email: trevinomtrev@aol.com

July 22, 2015

Court of Appeals

Fourth Court of Appeals District of Texas

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037

RE: 04-14-00222-CR

Jacob Cory Gonzales v. State of Texas

Trial Court # 2011-CR-8528A

Clerk of the Court:

I hereby certify that I have complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4 and

have attached a copy of the return receipt within the time for filing a motion for rehearing .

Mario A. Trevino

SBN 20211250

Enclosure

ACCEPTED

04-14-00222-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/22/2015 11:07:10 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7/22/2015 11:07:10 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY

Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.

Print your name and address on the reverse

f/lr.

A. Signature^

x T^iLj

PrintedName)

D Agent

D Addressee

C. Date of Delivery

17

D. Is delivery address different frbm item 1 ? D Yes

If YES, enter delivery address below: H"No

3. ServjceType

ETCertrfied Mail

D Registered

D Insured Mail

D Express Mail

EKRetum Receipt for Merchandise

D C.O.D.

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) D Yes

2. Article Number

PS Form 381 1 , February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 10&595-02-M-1540