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

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Jan Aaron Sigurgeirson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Coastal Media
     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
14th day of May, 2007.


/s/ Jan Aaron Sigurgeirson
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
----

----

|   | 1. | RADVISION Inc. (incorporated in New Jersey, the United States of America) |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | RADVISION B.V. (incorporated in the Netherlands) |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | RADVISION (HK) Ltd. (incorporated in Hong Kong) |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | RADVISION (UK) Ltd. (incorporated in the United Kingdom) |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | RADVISION Communication Development (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (incorporated in China) |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 6. | RADVISION Japan KK (incorporated in Japan) |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------|

|   | 7. | RADVISION France S.A.R.L (incorporated in France) |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 8. | RADVISION GmbH (incorporated in Germany) |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------|

|   | 9. | RADVISION Government Services, Inc (incorporated in Delaware, the United States of America, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of RADVISION Inc.) |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 10. | RADVISION S.r.l (incorporated in Italy) |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------|

|   | 11. | RADVISION ESPAÑA, S.R.L. (incorporated in Spain) |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5031 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5031

     To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to clarify the 
   application of the credit card bank exception to certain limited 
   purpose credit card banks serving community banks, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2004

Mr. Nethercutt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to clarify the 
   application of the credit card bank exception to certain limited 
   purpose credit card banks serving community banks, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Community Credit Card Bank Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY CREDIT CARD BANK EXCEPTION.

    Section 2(c)(2)(F)(v) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 
U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(F)(v)) is amended by inserting, before the period at 
the end, the following: ``except that, in the case of an institution--
                                    ``(I) which has total assets of 
                                less than $1,000,000,000;
                                    ``(II) which was chartered before 
                                June 1, 1998;
                                    ``(III) at least 80 percent of the 
                                credit card receivables of which have 
                                either been acquired in portfolio 
                                purchases from unaffiliated insured 
                                depository institutions, or issued 
                                through unaffiliated insured depository 
                                institutions as agents of such 
                                institutions; and
                                    ``(IV) which issues or services 
                                commercial credit card loans that 
                                constitute, in the aggregate, not more 
                                than 10 percent of the credit card 
                                receivables of the institution,
                        the institution shall not be treated as 
                        engaging in the business of making commercial 
                        loans, for purposes of this subparagraph, 
                        solely on the basis of issuing or servicing 
                        such commercial credit card accounts.''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 01-11405

Conference Calendar

 

HENRY WARREN HOLIDAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOM GREEN COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CV-47-C

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

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Warren Holiday, Texas prisoner # 567442, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Holiday’s complaint

asserted that his civil rights were violated because jail

officials confiscated his law books for a time and placed a

county property stamp on them. He also conclusionally asserts

for the first time on appeal that he was denied access to courts
No. 01-11405

-2-

and that the jail law library was inadequate, but this court will

not consider claims that are raised for the first time on appeal. 

See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount

Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).

The district court did not err in dismissing Holiday’s

deprivation-of-property claim as frivolous. See Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Texas has an adequate

postdeprivation remedy for confiscation of prisoner property. 

Cathey v. Guenther, 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Holiday’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s

dismissal each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th

Cir. 1996). Holiday therefore has two “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). We caution Holiday that once he accumulates three

strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Exhibit 23.1
 (GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LOGO)
    
    Principal Officers:
Harry Jung, P. Eng.
     President, C.E.O.
Dana B. Laustsen, P. Eng.
     Executive V.P., C.O.O.
Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.
     Executive V.P.
Officers / Vice Presidents:
Terry L. Aarsby, P. Eng.
Jodi L. Anhorn, P. Eng.
Neil I. Dell, P. Eng.
David G. Harris, P. Geol.
Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.
Bryan M. Joa, P. Eng.
John H. Stilling, P. Eng.
Douglas R. Sutton, P. Eng.
James H. Willmon, P. Eng.
 LETTER OF CONSENT
   GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.
 ORIGINALLY SIGNED BY
 
 
  rd   
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 48 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 294
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 48 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 295
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 48 Filed 01/25/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 296
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 48 Filed 01/25/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 297
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 48 Filed 01/25/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 298
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Naches Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest; Minor 
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Relocation

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: A minor relocation (approximately 2,000 feet) will occur on 
the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCNST) in 2009. The trail will 
be re-routed from its current location within the White Pass Ski Area 
south to the Wilderness boundary on the edge of the expansion area with 
the purpose of maintaining a quality, uninterrupted backcountry 
experience for PCNST users and to minimize their views of ski area 
structures and facilities. All activities were analyzed in the White 
Pass Expansion Master Development Plan Proposal Final Environmental 
Impact Statement and documented in the June 2007 Record of Decision. 
Relocation will begin in July 2009 and is expected to be completed by 
fall 2009. Trail relocation will be done in conjunction with the 
Pacific Crest Trail Association.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this trail 
relocation to Randall Shepard, Naches District Ranger, USDA, Okanogan-
Wenatchee National Forest, 10237 US Highway 12, Naches, WA 98937, 509-
653-1415.

    Dated: July 8, 2009.
Randall D. Shepard,
Naches District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
[FR Doc. E9-16649 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
```
v. Crim. No. 11-208 (SRC)

SIXING LIU ORDER FOR CONTINUAN_CE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (L. Judson Welie, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing), and defendant Sixing Liu (James Tunick, Esq.,

appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter 1and one continuance

having previously been granted by the Court pursuant to Title 18.

United States Code? Section 3161(h) (7) (A), and the defendant

being aware that he has a right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161 (c) (1), and the defendant having

consented to the continuance arid waived such right to the extent

of the continuance appearing below, and for good cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The Court previously ordered the defendant to file

pretrial motions by August 30, 2011;
(3) The defendant and his counsel desire sufficient

time to evaluate the charges contained in any Superseding

Indictment that may be returned prior to having to file pretrial

motions;

(4) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h) (7), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy triaL

-j : IT IS, therefore, on this 7 / day of August, 2011,

ORDERED that dates previously set in this matter are

hereby adjourned as follows:

(a) defendant’s motions shall be filed by Thursday,

November 10, 2011;

(b) the government’s response shall be filed by

Thursday, December 1, 2011;

Cc) hearing on the motions shall be held on Wednesday,

December 7, 2011, at 10:00 a,m.; and

Cd) trial in matter shall be held Tuesday,

January 10, 2012, at 10:00 am.;

2
ORDERED that the period from the date of this

order until January 1OL, 2012 shall be excludable in computing

time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Form and entry

consented to:

L. Judson Welle

Assistant U.S. Attorney

C eel for defendant Sixing Liu

3
ORDERED that the period from the date of this

order until January 10, 2012 shall be excludable in computing

time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

6N. STANLEY R. CHEStER

United States District Judge

Form and entry

consented to:

L. JudsWe1le

Assisit U.S. Attorney

James Tunick, Esq. Counsel for defendant Sixing Liu

3
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 5,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending August 31, 2007, I, Virginia K.
      Sourlis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
      hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
      and
      belief, that:





1.
      Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August 31, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
      ending August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: October 5, 2007By:
                /s/
                    VIRGINIA K. SOURLISVirginia
                  K. SourlisChief Executive Officer and Chief
                  Financial
                  Officer
2012 Exhibit 10.3






Exhibit 10.3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Note Purchase Agreement (defined below) is made as of January 31, 2013 by and among: Clearwire Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Parent”); Clearwire Communications LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”); Clearwire Finance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Finance Co” and, together with the Company, the “Issuers”); and Sprint Nextel Corporation, a Kansas corporation (the “Purchaser”, and together with the Parent and the Issuers, collectively the “Parties”). 
RECITALS 
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Note Purchase Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2012 (the “Note Purchase Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, the Purchaser's obligation to purchase and pay for Notes on Draw Dates occurring on or after August 1, 2013 is subject to, among other things, the execution of a Build-Out Agreement by the Purchaser, on the one hand, and the Parent or the Company, on the other hand, within 45 calendar days of the date of the Note Purchase Agreement (the “Build-Out Agreement Deadline”); and 
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to extend the Build-Out Agreement Deadline as provided below. 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 
 
	
		
	1.
	AMENDMENT TO NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT




1.1    Amendment to Section 1.01 of the Note Purchase Agreement. The definition of “Agreement Condition” set forth in Section 1.01 of the Note Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
“Agreement Condition” means a Build-Out Agreement shall have been executed by the Purchaser, on the one hand, and the Parent or the Company, on the other hand, by February 28, 2013. 
 
	
		
	2.
	GENERAL




2.1    Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Note Purchase Agreement. 
2.2    Full Force and Effect. Except to the extent specifically amended herein or supplemented hereby, the Note Purchase Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
2.3    Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
[Signature page immediately follows] 
 
 





































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above. 
 












CLEARWIRE CORPORATION


By:  /s/ Scott A. Hopper            
Name:  Scott A. Hopper
Title:    Senior Vice President




CLEARWIRE COMMUNICATIONS
LLC


By:  /s/ Scott A. Hopper            
Name:  Scott A. Hopper
Title:    Senior Vice President




CLEARWIRE FINANCE, INC.


By:  /s/ Scott A. Hopper            
Name:  Scott A. Hopper
Title:    Senior Vice President




SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION


By:  /s/ Charles R. Wunsch        
Name:  Charles R. Wunsch
Title:    SVP, General Counsel and
             Corporate Secretary
#### Davis *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J. — The charge of the court was warranted by the facts in evidence, and was free from error; the requests to charge were properly denied; and the evidence warranted the verdict. There was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

October 8, 1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Falligant. Chatham superior court. June term, 1894.

Nicolson & MoKethan, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and W. W. Fraser, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
909 A.2d 719

#### IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP J. MORAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 9, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-128, concluding that PHILIP J. MORAN of SKILLMAN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1975, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year for multiple violations of *RPC*1.1(a) (gross negligence), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information), *RPC*1.16(a)(2) (failure to withdraw from representation when physically or mentally impaired), and *RPC*1.16(d) (failure to take reasonable steps on termination of representation to protect client’s interests and failure to return unearned portion of retainer);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that respondent should be required to serve a prospective suspension of seven months rather than one year because of his placement on disability inactive status pursuant to *Rule*1:20-12 from September 8, 2003, through February 25,2004;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to submit proof of his fitness to practice law, and that on reinstatement practice respondent should practice under supervision, and should not practice as a sole practitioner;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PHILIP J. MORAN is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, and until the further Order of the Court, provided however, that the active period of *484suspension shall be seven months, effective immediately, and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall provide proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics and shall not engage in the practice of law as a sole practitioner until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*1:20 — 20(b) (15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Case 1:10-cv-06609-NLH-KMW Document 15 Filed 12/20/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 80