alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1      SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, William J. Fossen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viking Capital Group,
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 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 periods presented in this quarterly 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)) 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 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 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 controls over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  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.


Date: November 14, 2003


/s/  William J. Fossen.
------------------------------
William J. Fossen
Chief Executive Officer



                                                                              26
Exhibit 13.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Graña y Montero S.A.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mario Alvarado Pflucker, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|/s/ Mario Alvarado Pflucker                                 
|Name: Mario Alvarado Pflucker Title: Chief
Executive Officer

April 28, 2014
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

NO. 03-15-00422-CV

Shakeel Mustafa, Appellant

v.

Felix Rippy, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 15-0708-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We withdraw our opinion and judgment dated August 21, 2015, and substitute

the following opinion and judgment in their place. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is dismissed

as moot.

Shakeel Mustafa filed a notice of appeal attempting to challenge the trial court’s order

granting Felix Rippy’s motion to compel arbitration.

We do not have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s interlocutory order granting

arbitration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.098(a)(1),(2) (authorizing interlocutory appeal

of trial court order denying application to compel arbitration or granting application to stay

arbitration) (emphases added); Mohamed v. AutoNation USA Corp., 89 S.W.3d 830, 833-34
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (dismissing interlocutory appeal because “no

interlocutory appeal lies from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration under TAA”).

On August 4, 2015, this Court requested that Mustafa file a written response

demonstrating our jurisdiction over this appeal. No response was filed, and we dismissed the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.

Mustafa filed a motion for rehearing contending that we have jurisdiction to

review the trial court’s interlocutory order denying his motion to compel mediation then arbitration.

However, even if the trial court implicitly denied Mustafa’s motion to compel mediation

before arbitration, we lack jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order denying referral of a

matter to mediation. See In re D.C., No. 07-11-00046-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1461, at *3

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“We have no appellate jurisdiction to

review an interlocutory order granting or denying referral of a matter to mediation.”); see also

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) (providing for interlocutory appeals generally).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction on Motion for Rehearing

Filed: September 24, 2015

2
Exhibit 35.2



LOGO

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the Special Servicer), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling
and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an
authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



| | 1. | A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2017 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto)
(the Reporting Period), and of the Special Servicers performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling
and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LNR PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability companyBy

/s/ Job WarshawJob Warshaw President






1601 Washington Avenue  Suite 700  Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600  Fax: (305) 695-5601



---

Schedule I

CGCMT 2013-GCJ11

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2013-GCJ11

Citibank, N.A.,

Global Transaction Services

388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor

New York NY 10013

Cirino Emanuele

Citibank, N.A.,

Global Transaction Services

388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor

New York NY 10013

John Hannon

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich Street, 11th Floor

New York NY 10013

Angela Vleck

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York NY 10013

Paul Vanderslice

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich Street, 19th Floor

New York NY 10013

Richard Simpson

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich Street, 17th Floor

New York NY 10013

Ryan M. OConnor

Pentalpha Surveillance LLC

375 N. French Road, Suite 100

Amherst NY 14228

Don Simon
2

address the factual question of whether, and to what extent, the claims in the instant matter relate to the facts and circumstances of the first suit. We decline to make such an inquiry now. 

### See Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 17, 321 P.3d 875, 881 (2014) (stating that a determination involving factual inquiries should not be resolved by this court if the district court did not reach the issue). "As we have repeatedly noted, an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact," and the "discretion of this court to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus . . . will not be exercised unless legal, rather than factual, issues are presented." 

### Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).

Furthermore, we conclude petitioners have an adequate remedy at law, as they will be able to assert claim preclusion absent this court's intervention. 

### See Jeep Corp. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 440, 443, 652 P.2d 1183, 1185 (1982) ("[N]either mandamus or prohibition is appropriate in the face of effective alternative remedies.") Although petitioners must wait until the rights and liabilities of all the parties in the other action are adjudicated before they may assert claim preclusion in this action, this fact does not affect our disposition where petitioners had the opportunity to certify the district court's order in the other action as final under NRCP 54(b) yet declined to do so.

ORDER the petition DENIED.

J.

Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A GScc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas Black & LoBello Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3
10) 1947A
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket B-53-2015]

      ( print page 39982)    
The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board is inviting public comment on a submission containing new evidence pertaining to the application of The Coleman Company, Inc. (Coleman) requesting unrestricted production authority within Subzone 119I at the Coleman facility located in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. Specifically, the application requests unrestricted authority to produce personal flotation devices and flotation cushions using the following inputs in foreign status: Certain nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; knit polyester fleece fabrics; and, water soluble sensing elements.

On July 31, 2017, Coleman made a submission to the FTZ Board that included new evidence in response to the examiner's preliminary recommendation not to approve the unrestricted authority. Public comment is invited on Coleman's submission through September 22, 2017. Rebuttal comments may be submitted through the subsequent 15-day period, until October 10, 2017. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below.

                    A copy of Coleman's submission will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Diane Finver at                     *Diane.Finver@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-1367.                

Dated: August 16, 2017.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-17854 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### BOWLES, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, v. BROOKSIDE DISTILLING PRODUCTS CORPORATION et al.

No. 1649.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

April 10, 1945.

Stephen E. Gombar, Acting Dist. Enforcement Atty., of Scrantort, Pa., for plaintiff.

O’Malley, Hill, Harris & Harris and James F. Brady, all of Scranton, Pa., for defendants Brookside Distilling Co. i and Joseph M. Gentile.

WATSON, District Judge.

Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, brought this action against the Brookside Distilling Products Corporation et al. to recover treble damages for numerous sales of cases of whiskey in excess of the maximum prices established therefor by the regulations.

Defendants, Brookside Distilling Products Corporation and Joseph M. Gentile, filed a motion for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars.

The motion sets forth a number of reasons why the plaintiff should be ordered to file a bill of particulars. I have carefully ' examined the complaint and the reasons assigned, and have come to the conclusion that the complaint complies with the provisions of Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in that it adequately and concisely notifies the defendants of the circumstances out of which it a'rose. The allegations in the complaint are certainly sufficient to enable the defendants to know with what they are charged and to be able to answer “yes” or “no”.

It may be that it will facilitate the preparation of the defense if the defendants are furnished some of the information which their motion requests. However, the better practice is to obtain this information by timely use of the provisions of Rule 26, authorizing depositions or interrogatories for the purpose of discovery, and the provisions of Rule 36, authorizing requests for admission of facts.

Now, April 10, 1945, the motion for a bill of particulars is denied.
# gp22_01

# gp22_02

# gp22_03

# gp22_04

# gp22_05

# gp22_06

# gp22_07

# gp22_08

# gp22_09

# gp22_10

# gp22_11

# gp22_12

# gp22_13

# gp22_14

# gp22_15

# gp22_16

# gp22_17

# gp22_18

# gp22_19

# gp22_20

# gp22_21

# gp22_22

# gp22_23

# gp22_24

# gp22_25

# gp22_26

# gp22_b1

# gp22_b2

# gp22_b3

# gp22_b4

# gp22_b5
#### In the Matter of Chris Applewhite, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 444]

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduct and assaulting staff. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued and, during the course thereof, petitioner was expelled for disruptive behavior. The hearing proceeded in petitioner’s absence and, ultimately, petitioner was found guilty of engaging in violent conduct, but not guilty of assaulting staff. *1047Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending solely that he was improperly removed from the disciplinary hearing. Supreme Court disagreed and dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The record reveals that shortly after the disciplinary hearing commenced, petitioner accused the Hearing Officer of “conspirfing] to deprive [him] of [his] rights” and threatened to sue the Hearing Officer if the charges against him were sustained. The Hearing Officer responded that he would entertain appropriate objections, but would not tolerate such threats. Petitioner continued to lodge objections, accused the Hearing Officer of being biased and claimed that he received inadequate employee assistance, which the Hearing Officer duly noted and attempted to address. During this colloquy, petitioner repeatedly called the Hearing Officer a liar, and the Hearing Officer, in turn, repeatedly warned petitioner that if he continued to make such comments, he would be removed. Petitioner persisted and the Hearing Officer expelled petitioner from the hearing. Given petitioner’s disruptive, argumentative and antagonistic behavior, we cannot say that the Hearing Officer erred in removing him from the remainder of the hearing (see *Matter of Marie v Goord,*34 AD3d 1019 [2006]; *Matter of Acevedo v Goord,*32 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]; *Matter of Raqiyb v Goord,*24 AD3d 1013 [2005]). Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eleno AVILA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10662

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Eleno Avila-Rodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Consolidated Financial Statements at March 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to the December 31, 1996 Consolidated Financial
Statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,718
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    177,377
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         177,377
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           177,377
<LOANS>                                        349,219
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,558
<DEPOSITS>                                     406,798
<SHORT-TERM>                                    61,687
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,719
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  49,354
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,638
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,895
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   145
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,678
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,740
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,856
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,822
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      351
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 563
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,029
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,029
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,029
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.41
<LOANS-NON>                                         92
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,189
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,424
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      276
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  351
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               351
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>