alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1

                                 Certifications
                                 --------------


I, Scott R. Sand, Chief Executive Officer certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ingen Technologies, Inc.
(formerly known as Creative Recycling Technologies, Inc.)

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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-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 annual 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
     annual report ("Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether 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.

Date: May 11, 2007

/s/ Scott R. Sand
-----------------
Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50684

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE OSVALDO CONTRERAS-GRANADOS,

also known as Juan Carlos Diaz-Fierro,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-68-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rene Osvaldo

Contreras-Granados raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50540 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. SEDRICK DEMON MCCARTHER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12

- CR

- 296

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sedrick Demon McCarther, federal prisoner # 04204

- 180, is appealing the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his 60

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to p ossession with intent to distribute cocaine base

. He argues that he was entitled to a two

- level reduction in his offense level based on Amendment 7 82 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and that, in denying the motion, the district court placed too much emphasis on his

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 12, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50540 Document: 00513673210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2016No. 15

- 50540

2 criminal history and did not conside r his post

- sentencing conduct

. Additionally, McCarther contends that the majority of the § 3582 motions filed in the Eastern District of Texas are granted and that there was no basis for his disparate treatment. T he di strict court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). When considering a § 3582 (c)(2) motion, the district court is to conduct a two

- step analysis. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)

. The court must first determine whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id . at 827. If he is, the district court must then “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” a reduction is warranted under the facts of the case

. Id

. The district court recognized that McCarther was eligible for the reducti on of sentence and also considered the documentation that he submitted reflecting his post

- sentence conduct. Id. However, the district court determined that, based on McCarther’s extensive criminal history, there was a continued need to impose a sentence sufficient to protect the public from his wrongdoing and to deter McCarther from engaging further criminal activity

. Thus, the record reflects that the district court considered the appropriate policy statements and § 3553(a) factors in determining that the initial 60

- month sentence remained reasonable

. McCarther has not demonstrated that t he district court abuse d its discretion in denying the motion. Se Dillon , 560 U.S. at 827. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)

- (ii i )). AFFIRMED. Case: 15-50540 Document: 00513673210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2016
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Cirer v. Connelley

June 4, 1985

Case No. (Chancery) 7848

By JUDGE AUSTIN E. OWEN

Subsequent to your appearance on May 31, 1985, with respect to this matter, I have briefly reviewed the Virginia Code sections relating to partition, and Michie’s Jurisprudence, Volume 14 A, *Partition.*I have noticed that Code section 8.01-88 does now provide that a decree in partition can serve to convey title to the same extent as if the decree directed conveyance of title and the title was so conveyed.

I have also noted that Code section 55-2 prohibits any *voluntary*partition of lands except by deed.

Section 1.2 of Appendix B of the City code defines a "subdivision" as the division of any parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels for immediate or future transfer of ownership, and provides that the term includes all changes in lot lines. Section 2.2 of that ordinance prohibits the subdivision of land without the making and recording of a plat and without compliance with the subdivision ordinance. Section 10.1 of the ordinance provides for a fine of not more than $500 for each lot or parcel of land subdivided without compliance with the terms of the ordinance. (State Code section 15.1-473 is to the same general effect).

It also seems noteworthy that State Code section 15.1-475 which provides for an appeal to the circuit court from a refusal to approve or disapprove a plat, does not permit the court to approve or disapprove a *205plat, but merely permits the court to direct the appropriate city commission or agency to grant such approval or disapproval.

Likewise, an appeal from the action of City Council in refusing to approve the subdivision of the property in question, would not authorize this court to approve the subdivision, but merely to sustain the action of Council or to refer it back to Council with appropriate instructions.

It would not seem conceivable that these procedures could be by-passed merely by the institution of a suit for partition.

In the same vein, I believe from your comments that you are of the opinion that plaintiffs and defendants in this suit would not be well-advised to execute and record a deed of *voluntary*partition. Again, it would not seem that the statutory enactments ever envisioned a process where the same *voluntary*partition could be accomplished by a consent decree without concern for the subdivision ordinances and statutes.

Unless you find some authority to the contrary, I would not be inclined to enter the consent decree submitted in this matter. However, since the suit is filed, if you so desire and will draft an appropriate order of reference, we will refer the matter to one of our commissioners in Chancery for the taking of evidence and filing of a report containing recommendations with respect to the relief sought.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith
R. Marchiando, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Keith R. Marchiando
-------------------------------------
Keith R. Marchiando
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 11, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 2, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith
R. Marchiando, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Keith R. Marchiando
------------------------------------------
Keith R. Marchiando
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 11, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Frank and Clements 

STAFFORD (COUNTY OF) SCHOOL BOARD 

 AND VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0002-04-2 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 18, 2004 

ROBIN DALE WILLIS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Ralph L. Whitt, Jr.; Jennifer C. Williamson; Whitt & Associates, on 

briefs), for appellants. 

 (Wesley G. Marshall, on brief), for appellee. 

Stafford (County of) School Board and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission (1) awarding medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits 

to Robin D. Willis (claimant), (2) finding that claimant proved she sustained a new injury by 

accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on December 4, 2002, and (3) 

finding that her disability was causally related to the December 4, 2002 compensable injury by 

accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Willis v. Stafford (County of) School Board, VWC File No. 212-54-35 (Dec. 5, 2003). We 

dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
300 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION - Continued

Washington, DC Deputy Associate Commissioner Career Incumbent

for Disability and Income 

Assistance Policy

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Research, Evaluation and 

Statistics

 Do........... Associate Commissioner for Career Incumbent

Research, Evaluation and 

Statistics

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Retirement Policy

 Do........... Associate Commissioner for Vacant

Retirement Policy

ES ... ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Associate Commissioner Vacant

for Retirement Policy

ES ... ...... ...... ......

OFFICE OF SYSTEMS

Baltimore, MD Deputy Commissioner for Career Incumbent

Systems

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Assistant Deputy Commissioner Career Incumbent

for Systems

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Information Management

 Do........... Associate Commissioner for Career Incumbent

Information Management

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Systems Design and 

Development

 Do........... Associate Commissioner for Career Incumbent

Systems Design and Development

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Associate Commissioner Career Incumbent

for Systems Design and 

Development

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Systems Planning and 

Integration

 Do........... Director, Office of Systems Career Incumbent

Planning and Integration

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Director, Office of Career Incumbent

Systems Planning and 

Integration

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Systems Requirements

 Do........... Associate Commissioner for Career Incumbent

Systems Requirements

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Associate Commissioner Career Incumbent

for Systems Requirements

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Knoxville, TN Chairman of the Board of Craven Crowell

Directors

EX PAS III ...... 05/18/02

 Do........... Director, Board of Directors Skila Harris EX PAS IV ...... 05/18/08

 Do........... Director, Board of Directors Glenn McCullough, Jr. EX PAS IV ...... 05/18/08
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1996 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,554,951
<SECURITIES>                                   289,637
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,389,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,641,442
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,592,961
<PP&E>                                      26,337,335
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,550,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,379,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          475,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,903,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,379,356
<SALES>                                      3,319,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,316,853
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,035,790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,277,512
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,277,512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,277,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    70.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    70.11
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-21-00280-CR

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH 

DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS 

CHRISTI - EDINBURG

DEVON KEITH DEBORD, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Goliad County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This appeal was set for oral argument on November 3, 2022. Appellant Devon 

Debord has filed an unopposed motion to postpone oral argument. Among the reasons 

provided, appellant’s counsel states that she “is currently subject to a grievance that stems 

from this case, which has created a conflict.” She asks the Court “to postpone arguments 
2

pending the resolution of said grievance, which is expected to be after the new year.”

It is unclear to the Court whether this “conflict” means a “conflict of interest,” and if 

so, how that bears on counsel’s representation of appellant. Accordingly, the Court grants 

the motion to postpone, abates the appeal, and remands the case to the trial court to 

conduct a hearing. Within thirty (30) days of this order, the trial court is ordered to conduct 

a hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether a conflict of interest 

has arisen that would require appellant to obtain new counsel. If such a conflict exists and 

it has not been effectively waived by appellant, the trial court should either order appellant 

to retain new counsel within a reasonable time or appoint new counsel if appellant cannot 

afford to do so. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be appointed, the 

name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly 

appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. Finally, the Goliad 

County District Clerk is ordered to supplement the appellate record with the trial court’s 

findings and conclusions, as well as any other filings or orders pertaining to this issue.

PER CURIAM 

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

25th day of October, 2022.
Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership III-B ("Issuer") for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      Dated this 29th day of March, 2006.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP III-B
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Legato Systems, Inc. (Legato), that the Annual Report of Legato Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Legato Systems, Inc.



By:

/s/    DAVID B. WRIGHTDavid B. Wright Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/    ANDREW J. BROWNAndrew J. Brown Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: February 28, 2003