alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 I,
Jeffrey D. Hoyal, certify that:
 
 1.      I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Raybor Management,
Inc.;
 
 2.      Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.      Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.      The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)    designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)    evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)    disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.      The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls 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 financial weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data; 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 over financial
reporting.
  ****Date: March 30,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey D.
  HoyalJeffrey D. HoyalChief Executive
  Officer
#### McKNIGHT et al. v. MUTUAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM, Inc. et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 5, 1953.

*175Emil K. Ellis and Travis S. Levy, New York City, for plaintiff.

McGoldrick, Dannett, Horowitz & Golub, New York *City,*for defendants Mut. Broadcasting System and Herbert C. Rice.

DuBroff & DuBroff, New York City, for defendant Bobby Benson Enterprises, Inc.

KNOX, Chief Judge.

This action involves multiple defendants. Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial was made within ten days of one defendant’s answer, but over ten days after the answers of the other two defendants.

Federal Rule 38, 28 U.S.C.A., requires that a jury demand be made “not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading” directed to the issue on which the jury trial is sought. This is somewhat ambiguous in the situation of multiple defendants involving multiple answers filed at different times. Under this rule, the demand in this action was timely as to defendant Herbert C. Rice, and plaintiff has an absolute right to a jury trial against him. In addition, it seems clear that the demand was also timely as to the joint liability of all three defendants. It is only with respect to the several liability of defendants Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc. and Bobby Benson Enterprises, Inc. that the jury demand may be said to be late.

This appears to be a proper situation for the exercise of the discretion authorized in Federal Rule 39(b) which states:

> “ * * * notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues.”

It might be argued that although Rule 39(b) allows such action, it is inequitable that the defendants in this case should be denied a non-jury trial in order to grant a delinquent plaintiff a jury trial to which he is no longer entitled of right. However, granting a jury trial would obviate the necessity for two separate trials. Under the present crowded calendar situation, the interest of the other litigants in this court and of the court itself may be considered to be paramount to that of the defendants herein. As Judge Leibell stated in another action in which a timely jury demand was made as to the counterclaims but not as to the causes of action pleaded in the complaint:

> “Much of the evidence would be the same on each trial and it would result in a duplication of the work of the Court. It would also add to the expense of the litigation for both parties.” Gunther v. H. W. Gossard, Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 995.

Therefore, the motions of defendants Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc. and Bobby Benson Enterprises, Inc. to strike the plaintiff’s jury demand will be denied. Plaintiff’s cross motion to excuse the delay in filing the jury demand is granted.
#### Horne *v.*Hoyle.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

March 24, 1886.)

Patents for Invention—Sale—Action—Infrinoement.

The fact that the purchaser of a patented machine has been sued as an infringer by third parties, and put to expense in making defenses, is no defense to a suit by the vendor on the contract of sale, even where that contract provides that indemnity bonds shall be given the vendee, and none have been furnished.

At Law. Suit for damages for breach of contract. Motion to strike out part of answer.

The allegations of the answer as to the guaranty, and contract to-give an indemnity bond, referred to in the opinion of the court, are as follows:

“Further answering herein, this defendant says that, in and by the terms of said contract sued on in this action, it is provided and stipulated that the plaintiff herein should personally guaranty the validity of the patents under which said machine was made, and that he would furnish to this defendant indemnity bonds to save him harmless in the event of any litigation from the use of said Excelsior Electric Light plant, which plaintiff * * ***agreed to furnish to this defendant under the terms of said contract; and this defendant says that plaintiff herein * * * has wholly failed * **** to furnish to this defendant any indemnity bond or bonds.”

The other material facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

*George D. Reynolds,*for plaintiff.

*Dyer, Lee & Ellis,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Brewer, J.,

*(orally.)*In the case of *Horne*against *Hoyle*there is a motion to strike out parts of the answer. The petition alleges a contract to place an electric plant in a building in this city, the performance of the contract, non-payment of part of the purchase money, and an assignment of the contract to the plaintiff. The answer in one defense avers that it was a part of the contract that the contractor should furnish an indemnifying bond, guarantying against all infringements, and that that bond was not given.- Of course that states a perfect defense. It further alleges that since the putting of the plant in the building two suits have been commenced for infringement, and are pending, and that the defendant has been put to the expense of employing counsel to defend those suits. The motion is to strike out this last defense. Obviously, it should be sustained. If no bond was given, there is a perfect defense. If there was no stipulation for a bond, then it is immaterial whether defendant has been sued or not. If a bond was given, the remedy of the defendant is on that bond. *Non constat,*that neither the contractor nor the *217plaintiff were parties to that bond or liable on it, and the averment presents simply an immaterial matter for traverse and testimony.

The motion will he sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 869 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 869

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
 for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per 
                        month to $200 per month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
 for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per 
                        month to $200 per month.

    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 ``Youth Exchange Support Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR AMOUNTS PAID TO MAINTAIN 
              CERTAIN STUDENTS AS MEMBERS OF TAXPAYER'S HOUSEHOLD.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 170(g)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts paid to maintain 
certain students as members of taxpayer's household) is amended by 
striking ``$50'' and inserting ``$200''.
    (b) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 170(g) of such Code is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Adjustment for inflation.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
                beginning in a calendar year after 2003, the $200 
                amount contained in paragraph (2)(A) shall be increased 
                by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) $200, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which the taxable year begins 
                        by substituting `calendar year 2002' for 
                        `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) 
                        thereof.
                    ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
                paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $10, such increase 
                shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of 
                $10.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<RESTATED>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         698,808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,132,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,261,517
<PP&E>                                      21,944,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,987,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,212,970
<BONDS>                                        562,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           523
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,210,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,987,226
<SALES>                                      9,182,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,182,650
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,185,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               630,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             406,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,039,937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,039,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,039,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

 I, Henry Fahman, Principal Executive Officer of Catalyst ResourceGroup, Inc. certify that:

 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of CatalystResource Group, Inc.;

 2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 thisreport;

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

 4. The small business issuer's othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

     a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

     c) disclosedin this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (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 small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting; and

 5. The small business issuer's othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

     a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting.

Dated: November 3, 2011             	CATALYST RESOURCE GROUP, INC.
RE:	Saturna Investment Trust, File #33-13247

 

April 1, 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the referenced Trust and pursuant to Rule 497 (j), we wish tocertify that the form of the recently filed Prospectus and Statement ofAdditional Information for CIK #0000811860, Saturna Investment Trust, that wouldhave been filed under Rule 497 paragraph (b) or (c) would not have differed fromthat contained in the most recent registration or amendment, and that the texthas been filed electronically.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this filing, kindly contactme at  (360) 594-9900 x303.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21                                      
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Included in the financial statements of the Company are consolidated
subsidiaries owned, directly or indirectly, more than 50% by the Company.
Equity in undistributed earnings of nonconsolidated subsidiaries and affiliated
companies, 20% to 50% owned, is also included in the results of operations of
the Company.  Listed below are certain of these subsidiaries of the Company.
The remaining subsidiaries and affiliated companies not listed below, when
considered in the aggregate, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.
During the first quarter of 1996, The Knoll Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries,
Westinghouse Norden Systems, and Westinghouse Overseas Service Corporation were
divested.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               INCORPORATED       VOTING POWER
                                                  UNDER            OWNED BY
            NAME                                 LAWS OF       IMMEDIATE PARENT
            ----                               ------------    ----------------
<S>                                              <C>                   <C>
CBS Inc.                                         New York              100%
The Knoll Group, Inc.                            Delaware              100%
  Knoll North America, Inc.                      Delaware              100%
  Knoll Overseas, Inc.                           Delaware              100%
  Spinneybeck Enterprises, Inc.                  New York              100%
Thermo King Corporation                          Delaware              100%
Westinghouse Canada, Inc.                        Canada                100%
Westinghouse CBS Holdings Company, Inc.          Delaware              100%
Westinghouse Hanford Company                     Delaware              100%
Westinghouse Holdings Corporation                Delaware              100%
  Westinghouse de Puerto Rico, Inc.              Delaware              100%
  Westinghouse Electric S.A.                     Switzerland           100%
  Westinghouse International Technology
          Corporation                            Delaware              100%
  Westinghouse World Investment Corporation      Delaware              100%
  Westinghouse Foreign Sales Corporation         Barbados              100%
Westinghouse Industry Products
          International Company                  Delaware              100%
Westinghouse Norden Systems                      Delaware              100%
Westinghouse Overseas Service Corporation        Delaware              100%
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Inc.        Delaware              100%
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21


                       WEIS MARKETS, INC.
                 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                                
 
                                                      Percent
                                          State of    Owned by
                                       Incorporation Registrant

Albany Public Markets, Inc.              New York       100%

Dutch Valley Food Company, Inc.          Pennsylvania   100%

King's Supermarkets, Inc.                Pennsylvania   100%

Martin's Farm Market, Inc.               Pennsylvania   100%

Shamrock Wholesale Distributors, Inc.    Pennsylvania   100%

SuperPetz, Inc.                          Pennsylvania    80%

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the
Company and its subsidiaries.
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-52408 and333-66244 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-120707on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 30, 2006, relating tothe financial statements and financial statement schedule of WJ Communications, Inc.and management’s report of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness ofthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of a materialweakness) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of WJCommunications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.
| /s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |
|-------------------------------------|
| San Jose, California                |
| March 30,  2006                |

 

----
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 136

Congratulating the American Dental Association for establishing the ‘‘Give 

Kids a Smile’’ program, emphasizing the need to improve access to 

dental care for children, and thanking dentists for volunteering their 

time to help provide needed dental care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2003

Mr. CANTOR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the American Dental Association for establishing the ‘‘Give Kids a Smile’’ program, emphasizing 

the need to improve access to dental care for children, 

and thanking dentists for volunteering their time to help 

provide needed dental care.

Whereas access to dental care for children is a vital element 

of overall health care and development; 

Whereas dental caries–more commonly known as tooth 

decay–is the most common chronic childhood disease; 

Whereas untreated tooth decay in children results in thousands of children experiencing poor eating and sleeping 

patterns, suffering decreased attention spans at school, 

and being unable to smile; 
2

•HRES 136 IH 

Whereas, due to a confluence of factors, children eligible for 

Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program are three to five times more likely than other children to have untreated tooth decay; 

Whereas dentists provide an estimated $1.7 billion annually 

in nonreimbursed dental care; 

Whereas dentists participating in the the American Dental 

Association established the ‘‘Give Kids a Smile’’ program 

to serve as a reminder to the Nation about the need to 

end untreated childhood dental disease; and 

Whereas the ‘‘Give Kids a Smile’’ program treated an estimated one million children on February 21, 2003, at approximately 5000 locations in all 50 States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates the American Dental Associa3 tion for establishing the ‘‘Give Kids a Smile’’ pro4 gram; 

5 (2) emphasizes the need to improve access to 

6 dental care for children; and 

7 (3) thanks the thousands of dentists who volun8 teered their time and brought a smile to faces of an 

9 estimated one million children on February 21, 

10 2003.

Æ