alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31
  
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  I, Joseph Carusone, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting officer of Striker Energy Corp., hereby certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
  2.  Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report.
 
 3.  Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects our financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows as of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report.
 
 4.  The other
certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) and we have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures to ensure that material information relating to registrant,
including its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the
 period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness
of our disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to
the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and
  c)  presented in this quarterly
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.
  5.  The other
certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,
to our auditors and the audit committee of our board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  that there were no
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect our ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have further advised
 our  auditors that there we are not aware of any material
weaknesses in our internal controls; and
  b)  that
there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved our management or
other employees who have a significant role in our internal
controls.
 
 6.  The other
certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report that there
were no significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation.
  
 Striker Energy Corp., a Nevada
corporation
  Date: October
15,
2008 By: /s/
Joseph Carusone, President, CEO,  T reasurer,
Principal Accounting Officer and Director
#### BUNGE NORTH AMERICAN GRAIN CORPORATION v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

District Court, S. D. New York.

June 24, 1940.

Otto & Easterday, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City (George S. Brengle and Henry J. Bogatko, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

This is a motion for a bill of particulars, pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Plaintiff has no objection to furnishing the particulars requested in Part I (B) (1), (4) (11) and (12); II (B) 1 and 2; III (A) and (B) of the demand for a bill of particulars.

I think, however, that in order for defendant properly to prepare its answer, it will be necessary for it to have more particulars than plaintiff has voluntarily offered to furnish. The complaint alleges, in general terms, that the action is brought upon an insurance policy to recover damages which occurred to various shipments of grain made by plaintiff during the period from December 10, 1937 to March 10, 1938. It appears from the moving affidavit that more than 300 shipments were made by plaintiff during this period and that the policy contains conditions with respect to the time for filing claims and bringing suit that possibly may form a defense to some or all of the shipments upon which plaintiff’s claim is founded. I am of the opinion, therefore, that defendant, in order to prepare its answer, is entitled to have particulars which will clarify the complaint by showing the individual claims constituting the cause of action and thus enable it to set up whatever defenses it may have under the policies. The usual practice with respect to bills of particulars under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is aimed at discouraging applications for bills, and in most instances, if the complaint can be answered, defendant is left to his remedy by way of discovery and inspection. Here, however, the issues are complicated by plaintiffs attempted oversimplification of his cause of action and not only would it be unfair but it would probably result in confusion if defendant was forced to conduct his discovery proceedings upon the basis of such issues as might be framed by an answer to the complaint as it stands.

I shall therefore direct plaintiff to furnish the following particulars: I (A) ; I (B) (2) (3) (5) (7) (9) (13) and (15); II (A) (1); II (2) (B); the motion is otherwise denied. Submit order on notice.
# table167_q16.5_state
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          21,333
<SECURITIES>                                     9,780
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                       699
<INVENTORY>                                      1,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,604
<PP&E>                                           4,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,894
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,108
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,729
<SALES>                                         37,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,642
<CGS>                                           10,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,128
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,013
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,115
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   $ 0.85<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   $ 0.74<F1>
<FN>
<F1>INFORMATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO.128. BASIC AND DILUTED
EPS HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN PLACE OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
@article{102311,
  author = {Kristen Roskov and Thomas Epps and Brian Berry and Michael Fasolka and Steven Hudson and Maeva Tureau},
  title = {Preparation of Combinatorial Arrays of Polymer Thin Films for Transmission Electron Microscopy Analysis},
  year = {2008},
  number = {10},
  month = {2008-10-21},
  publisher = {Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=852708},
  language = {en},
}
1

Filed 7/24/15 P. v. McGraw CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEVIN GERALD MCGRAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

E062615

(Super.Ct.No. FVI1020024)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, 

Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant Kevin Gerald McGraw filed two petitions for 

resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126.1 The court denied the petitions. 

After defendant filed the notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent 

defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of 

the case and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court abused its 

discretion in denying defendant’s petitions. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 2, 2005, a jury convicted defendant of attempted robbery (count 2; 

§§ 664/211). After a bifurcated bench trial, the court found true allegations defendant 

had suffered two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-

(d).) The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 25 years 

to life.

On May 5, 2014, defendant filed a petition for resentencing. On October 15, 

2014, defendant filed another petition for resentencing. On November 25, 2014, the 

court denied defendant’s petitions finding, “Defendant’s current commitment offense is 

for attempt[ed] robbery [sections] 664/211[,] a serious felony making defendant 

ineligible for resentencing under [section] 1170.126.”

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

DISCUSSION

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he 

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we 

have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues. 

(§§ 1170.126, subd. (b) [“Any person serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment 

. . . upon conviction . . . of a felony . . . that [is] not defined as serious . . . by . . .

subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, may file a petition for a recall of sentence . . . .”]; 

1192.7, subds. (c)(1)(19) [“robbery”] & (39) [“any attempt to commit a crime listed in 

this subdivision”].)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

KING

J.
Steven W. Dulan Esq. (P54914)

1750 East Grand River Ave. Ste. 101

East Lansing, MI 48823

Phone: (517) 333 -7132Fax: (517) 333 -1691Counsel for Amici Curiae,

MCRGO and NJCSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JEFFREY M. MULLER; et. a?.,

No. 2: 1O-CV-6110 (WHW) (CCC)

Plaintiffs,

v. Hon. William H. Walls

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA, et al., Order Granting

Leave to File Amici Curiae

Defendants, Briefon Behalfof

MCRGOand NJCSD

Upon consideration of the application and proposed briefsubmitted by counsel, the Court hereby grants

the application of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) and the New JerseyCoalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) for relief tofile an amicus Brief in support of Plaintiffs.

I 17j

1

Itis SO ORDERED this’ day f 2O—_-2

Unitdi States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for Summit Tax Exempt L.P. III and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000812220
<NAME>                        Summit Tax Exempt L.P. III
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              59,832
<SECURITIES>                                    45,069,792
<RECEIVABLES>                                      164,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,962,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              224,367
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,737,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,962,262
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,087,312
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   432,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,654,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,654,902
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</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 Quarterly Report of AOB Biotech, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
        Nelson Liao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Haijing (Carrie)
        Wang,
        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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 April
                  13, 2007
              ***/s/
                  Nelson Liao****Nelson
                  Liao**Chief
                  Executive Officer*April
                  13, 2007
              ***/s/Haijing
                  (Carrie) Wang****Haijing
                  (Carrie) Wang**Chief
                  Financial Officer*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S I T I MAR HA E NN Y R A H A Y U N I N G S I H ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70011 A ge nc yN os . A 099- 779- 854

A 099- 779- 855 A 099- 779- 856 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S i t i M a rha e nnyR a ha yuni ngs i h a nd he rf a m i l y , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of Indo nesi a, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order d is m is s in g th e irap p e a l f r o m a n im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g th e ir appl i cat i on for a sy l um . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED JU N 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70011 2 for s ub st ant i alevi dence, Zet i no v. H older , 62 2 F . 3d 10 07 , 10 12 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s c on clusi on thatpet i t i on er s f ai l ed t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ora n obj e c t i ve l yr e a s onabl e f e arof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

apr ot e c t e d gr ound, be c aus e the ydi d notde m ons tr a t e tha tthe p e r s o n s w h o a tte m p te dto f o r c e R ah ayu n in g s ih to r e tu rn h e ra d o p te dd au g h te rto th e d au g h te r ’s b io lo g ic a l m o th e rw e r e m o tiv a te db ym o r e th an ap e r s o n a l d is p u te . Se e i d. a t 1 0 1 5 - 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( th e R e a l I D A c t r e q u ir e s ap r o te c te dg r o u n dto be “ one c e ntr a l r e a s on” f orthe pe r s e c ut i on) . A c c or di ngl y , pe t i t i one r s ’ a s y l um cl ai m fai l s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
================================================================================

Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

I, Karen Law, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Arbutus Resources,
Inc..;
2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

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

4. I am  responsible  for  establishing  and  maintaining   disclosure  controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

         a.  designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;
         b. evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to  the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation  Date");  and
         c.  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
         effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  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 in the design or operation of internal
         controls  which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
         record,   process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
         identified  for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
         internal  controls;  and
         b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant  role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. I have  indicated  in  this  quarterly  report  whether  or  not  there  were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or in  other  factors  that  could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.


IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
13th day of September, 2006.

/s/  Karen Law
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
*

 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50686

Summary Calendar

 

LEMUEL AMON BOND, III,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

R. MILES, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CV-375-SS

__________________________________________

April 28, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lemuel Amon Bond, III (“Bond”), federal prisoner # 54995-079, appeals the denial without

prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which the district court construed as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Bond argues that

because neither of his prior § 2255 motions was considered on the merits, the § 2255 

remedy isinadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, and he is entitled to challenge

his sentence in a § 2241 habeas petition. 

Jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion lies in the district where the movant’s sentence was

imposed. See § 2255; Ojo v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir.
2

1997). In Bond’s case, that is the Southern District of Texas. Accordingly, the district court did not

have jurisdiction to construe Bond’s § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion. See Ojo, 106 F.3d at 683;

see also Solsona V. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, Bond is not entitled to challenge his sentence in a § 2241 petition. Because

Bond failed to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his second § 2255 motion as successive, he has

failed to establish the ineffectiveness or inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy. See Kaufman v.

Wilkinson, 237 F.2d 519, 520, n.1 (5th Cir. 1956); See Josey v. Humphrey, 210 F.2d 826, 827 (3d

Cir. 1954). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment should be affirmed on the ground that Bond

failed to state a claim for relief under § 2241. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.

1992) (court of appeals may affirm district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record).

To the extent that Bond’s appealseeks authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, Bond

is instructed that he may file a separate motion with this court requesting such authorization. See §

2255.

AFFIRMED.