alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jeffrey A. Green, Chief Executive Officer, DATATRAK International, Inc.,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DATATRAKInternational, Inc. (the “registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols 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 on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004      /s/ Jeffrey A. Green      Jeffrey A. Green,   President and Chief Executive Officer
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 277 

Recognizing the month of October 2015 as ‘‘National Principals Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2015 

Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, and Mr. DURBIN) submitted the following resolution; which 

was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the month of October 2015 as ‘‘National 

Principals Month’’. 

Whereas the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association of Elementary School 

Principals have declared the month of October 2015 to 

be ‘‘National Principals Month’’; 

Whereas principals are educational visionaries, instructional 

and assessment leaders, disciplinarians, community builders, budget analysts, facilities managers, and administrators of legal and contractual obligations; 

Whereas principals work collaboratively with teachers and 

parents to develop and implement a clear mission, high 

curriculum standards, and performance goals; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 277 ATS 

Whereas principals create school environments that facilitate 

great teaching and learning and continuous school improvement; 

Whereas the vision, actions, and dedication of principals provide the mobilizing force behind any school reform effort; 

and 

Whereas the celebration of National Principals Month would 

honor elementary school, middle school, and high school 

principals, and recognize the importance of principals in 

ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality 

education: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the month of October 2015 as 

3 ‘‘National Principals Month’’; and 

4 (2) honors the contribution of principals in the 

5 elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools 

6 of the United States by supporting the goals and 

7 ideals of National Principals Month. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## NO. 12

- 0 9

- 00 222

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF § APPEAL FROM THE

A.N.T. AND H.M.L., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW

#2

MINOR CHILDREN § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEM ORANDUM OPINION

Pansy Leavings appeals the trial court’s orders finding her in contempt for failing

to pay child support for A.N.T. and H.M.L., her children. In six issues, Leavings argues

that the trial court’s contempt orders should be reversed. We di smiss for want of

jurisdiction.

C ONTEMPT O RDERS

Leavings seeks a direct appeal of contempt orders regarding her two children.

She raises no issues related to any matters other than the contempt orders. A contempt

order is reviewable only by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the person in contempt

is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved). Cadle

Co. v. Lobingier , 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (citing

In re Long , 984 S.W.2d 623, 62 5 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) ). We have no

jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v.

Nunley , 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); Ex parte Cardwell , 416 S.W.2d 382, 384

(Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding) ; Wagner v. W arnasch , 156 Tex. 334, 339, 295 S.W.2d

890, 893 (1956).

D ISPOSITION2 Because we have no jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal, the

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.



### B RIAN 

### H OYLE

Justice

Opinion de livered June 30 , 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
EXHIBIT 99.4

CONSENT OF INTERNAL QUALIFIED RESERVES EVALUATOR

Reference
is made to my Report on Reserves Data dated March 3, 2015, included in the Annual Information Form of Talisman Energy Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014
(the "AIF"), and to the references to my name in the AIF and elsewhere in the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F to be filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I
consent to the incorporation by reference of my Report into this Annual Report on Form 40-F. I have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained in
this Annual Report on Form 40-F that were derived from my Report or that is within my knowledge as a result of the work I performed in connection with such Report.

I
also consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



of
my Report on Reserves Data dated March 3, 2015 and to the references to my name in the AIF, which are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.

Calgary, Canada
March 4, 2015

By:

/s/ MARK IRELANDName:

Mark IrelandTitle:

Internal Qualified Reserves Evaluator


---



QuickLinks
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000006

23-JUN-2017

08:10 AM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 28, 2022

No. 04-21-00024-CV

FFGGP, INC., as trustee of the Windward Trace 9131 Land Trust,

Appellant

v.

MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, and U.S. Bank 

National Association, as trustee of TIKI Series IV Trust,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-02266

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On January 12, 2022, this court issued an opinion and judgment reversing and rendering 

judgment in appellant’s favor. On February 10, 2022, appellees filed a motion for rehearing. 

After considering the motion, the motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED February 28, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Collaborative Innovation Award Review.                    

*Date:*                         November 7-8, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, Room 1068, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Democracy 1, Room 1073 Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0810,                         *lourdes.ponce@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 7, 2017.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-19362 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terra Income Fund 6, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vikram S. Uppal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory M. Pinkus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:


1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 30, 2022


/s/ Vikram S. UppalVikram S. UppalChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Gregory M. PinkusGregory M. PinkusChief Financial Officer,Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL PETRAMALA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE; ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr.,

Attorney General,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17174

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02002-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Michael Petramala appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning his ability to lawfully possess

FILED

SEP 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17174

firearms. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal for failure to state a claim, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616,

619 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s Second Amendment claim

because Petramala’s inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check

System, after being adjudicated as a “mental defective” under the Gun Control Act

of 1968, imposed constitutionally permissible limits on his right to bear arms. See

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (recognizing validity of

certain limits on the right to bear arms, including “longstanding prohibitions on the

possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”). 

The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s Fifth Amendment claim

because judicially noticeable documents established that Petramala received both

due process and legal representation during the Arizona state law criminal

proceeding in which he was adjudicated as a “mental defective” for purposes of the

Gun Control Act of 1968. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (barring, among other things,

possession of a firearm by anyone adjudicated as a mental defective); 27 C.F.R. 

§ 478.11(a) (defining the term “adjudicated as a mental defective”).

The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s claim under the Americans

with Disabilities Act because the federal government, its agencies, and its officials
3 11-17174

are either expressly excluded or otherwise exempt from the definitions of entities

subject to suit under the statute. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(2), 12111(5), 12131(1).

Issues not expressly raised on appeal, including the denial of Petramala’s

motion for relief from judgment, are deemed waived. See Cook v. Schriro, 538

F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008).

Petramala’s contentions concerning the Thirteenth Amendment, the

Separation of Powers doctrine, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Arizona state law,

and the common law doctrine are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2014 (the “Report”) of Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp . (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard A. Petrocelli , the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/   Richard A. PetrocelliName:    Richard A. PetrocelliDate: December 9, 2014
#### John Cooper vs. CVS Pharmacy.

January 24, 2008.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts.

John Cooper appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

Relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary. Cooper “must ‘demonstrate both a substantial claim of violation of his substantive rights and error that cannot be remedied under the ordinary review process.’ ” *1025
      *McGuinness*v. *Commonwealth,*420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995), quoting *Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc.*v. *Operation Rescue,*406 Mass. 701, 706 (1990). Further, we will not disturb the single justice’s denial of relief absent an abuse of discretion or other clear error of law. E.g., *Matthews*v. *Appeals Court,*444 Mass. 1007, 1008 (2005).

*John Cooper,*pro se.

*Todd M. Reed*for the defendant.

Cooper’s submissions to the single justice and to this court fail to establish any basis for relief. Cooper appears to be challenging a 1998 Superior Court order prohibiting him from filing any further claims or complaints in that court without prior review by counsel (or at least an attempt to obtain such review) and the approval of the Regional Administrative Justice. He has not shown any reason, however, why the 1998 order was improperly entered or why it should be vacated or modified now. Further, Cooper fails to address the fact that other remedies exist. There is no indication in the record that he sought appellate relief from the order at the time it was made or that he has moved in the Superior Court for relief from that order at any time thereafter. He also could have appealed on a case-by-case basis from any order denying permission to file a particular pleading. See *Russell*v. *Nichols,*434 Mass. 1015 (2001). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42716-42717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19100]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 552 (Sub-No. 21)]


Railroad Revenue Adequacy--2016 Determination

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: On September 6, 2017, the Board served a decision announcing 
the 2016 revenue adequacy determinations for the Nation's Class I 
railroads. Four carriers (BNSF Railway Company, Norfolk Southern 
Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific 
Railroad Company) were found to be revenue adequate.

DATES: Effective Date: This decision is effective on September 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. 
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is required to make an annual 
determination of railroad revenue adequacy. A railroad is considered 
revenue adequate under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a) if it achieves a rate of 
return on net investment (ROI) equal to at least the current cost of 
capital for the railroad industry for 2016, determined to be 8.88% in 
Railroad Cost of Capital--2016, EP 558 (Sub-No. 20) (STB served Aug. 7, 
2017). This revenue adequacy standard was applied to each Class I 
railroad. Four carriers (BNSF Railway Company, Norfolk Southern 
Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific 
Railroad Company) were found to be revenue adequate for 2016.
    The decision in this proceeding is posted on the Board's Web site 
at

[[Page 42717]]

www.stb.gov. Copies of the decision may be purchased by contacting the 
Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at 
(202) 245-0238.

    Decided: September 5, 2017.

    By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2017-19100 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

 

No. 96-3750

 

Mid-South Road Builders, Inc., *

 * 

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas

 * Western Division

 * 

Arkansas Contractors Licensing * [UNPUBLISHED]

Board, Howard Williams, James *

Edwards, Randy McNulty, Roger *

Richmond, Ray Nabholz, Silas *

Snow, Phil Johnson [sic] and *

George McGill, *

 * 

Appellants. *

 

Submitted: May 19, 1997

 Filed: July 31, 1997

 

Before BEAM and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and KYLE, District Judge. 1

 

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of

its October 2, 1996 Order in view of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s May 27,

1996 Opinion in Mid-South Road Builders, Inc. v. Arkansas Contractors

Licensing Board, No. 96-447. 
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.