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

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carol K. Nelson, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cascade Financial
Corporation;

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 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, 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 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 likely to 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, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

   a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls 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 controls
over financial reporting.


Date:  March 11, 2005                        /s/ Carol K. Nelson
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Carol K. Nelson, President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of CoConnect, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Mark L. Baum, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the
following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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 results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Mark L.
Baum


Mark L.
Baum


Interim
President and Chief Executive Officer





May 5,
2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                  0001088664
<NAME>                                 CLEMENTS GOLDEN PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                           1
<CURRENCY>                             U.S. Currency

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<CASH>                                 2,860
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          123,255
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       154,973
<PP&E>                                 116,318
<DEPRECIATION>                         (15,550)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         275,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  1,856,659
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               14,249
<OTHER-SE>                             2,942,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           275,768
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  93,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          93,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       684,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (776,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (776,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (.054)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.054)




</TABLE>
**Exhibit****Number 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spectrum Bancorporation,Inc. (“Spectrum”) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended March 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Deryl F. Hamann, Chief Executive Officer of Spectrum, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

(2)                                  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of Spectrum.

 
| */s/ Deryl F. Hamann*                                  |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Deryl F. Hamann, Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

20

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1365. BRENTREZ MCPHERSON v. TAMMY HOWARD. 

Prisoner Brentrez McPherson filed a petition for writ of mandamus against

TammyHoward, the DouglasCounty Superior CourtClerk, asserting that the warrant

upon which he was arrested in 2012 was illegal. On December 10, 2019, the trial

court dismissed McPherson’s petition for writ of mandamus. He filed a direct appeal

on January 10, 2020. We lack jurisdiction.

First, while judgments and orders granting or refusing to grant mandamus are

generally directly appealable, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7), under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, any appeal in a civil case initiated by a prisoner must come by

discretionary application. See OCGA § 42-12-8; Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489,

490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). Because McPherson is incarcerated, he was required to

file an application for discretionary appeal to seek review of the trial court’s order. 

“Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v.

Dept. of Human Res., 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). His failure to

follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Additionally, even if McPherson had a right of direct appeal, this appeal is

untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the trial

court’s order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal

is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Couch v. United

March 06, 2020
PaperworkersIntl. Union, 224 Ga.App. 721, 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). McPherson

untimely filed his notice of appeal 31 days after the trial court entered its order.

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/06/2020
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-136924 and No. 333-163114 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-163193 on Form S-3 of our report dated April 6, 2011, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of GeoMet, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in 2009 of the accounting for natural gas reserves), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof GeoMet, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

*/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Houston, Texas 

April 6, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership ("NPAMLP") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Edward B. Lipkin, President of EBL&S, Inc., the Managing
General Partner of NPAMLP 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.

                                   National Property Analysts Master Limited
                                   Partnership
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   (Registrant)

                                   Date: March 29, 2005

                                   By: EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partner

                                   By: /s/ Edward B. Lipkin
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name: Edward B. Lipkin
                                       Title: President
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.      SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,                2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the“Periodic                Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the                end of                the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations                of the                Company for the period covered by the Periodic                Report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/   Peter A. Michel           |   | /s/   Lincoln Zehr                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |   |                                                     |
|    Peter                A. Michel         |   |    Lincoln                Zehr            |
|    Chief                Executive Officer |   |    Chief                Financial Officer |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2006

LI RONG LIU, Petitioner,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-2086

LI RONG LIU, Petitioner,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008- 2 - Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Wong, New York, New York, for Petition er. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Li Rong Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, which denied her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Liu does not challenge the Board’s adoption of the immigration judge’s finding that she failed to show that her asylum application was timely filed. Furthermore, she has raised no specific claim regarding the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are abandoned. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding failure to raise specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Liu also contends the Board and the immigration judge erred in denying her request for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2007). Based on our review of the record, we find that Liu failed to make the requisite showing. We therefore uphold the denial of her request for withholding of removal.- 4 - Accordingly, we deny Liu’s petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
#### Gregory W. INGRAM, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2010-3186.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 20, 2011.

Gregory W. Ingram, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) moves without opposition to remand this case for further proceedings.

Gregory W. Ingram filed an action at the Board challenging OPM’s denial of his application for disability retirement. The Board affirmed OPM’s decision, finding that the record did not show that Ingram suffered any medical condition requiring his absence from the workplace or affecting his ability to perform the essential duties of his job. In considering Ingram’s claim, the administrative judge noted, inter alia, that the Social Security Administration (SSA) had denied his claim for disability benefits.

OPM indicates that on May 2, 2010, after the administrative judge’s decision, the SSA awarded Ingram disability benefits. OPM states that the Board should consider this award of benefits along with the other evidence of disability. We grant the motion so that the Board may consider the award of disability benefits.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion to remand is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
**EXHIBIT 31.2(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Tony Oviedo, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of GeoMet, Inc. (“registrant”);

 

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;

 

Date: April 30, 2012

 
|   |                        |
|--------|-----------------------------|
| By     | /s/ Tony Oviedo             |   |
|   | **Tony Oviedo,**            |   |
|   | **Chief Financial Officer** |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FILER'S
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FILER'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001088464
<NAME>                        Browsesafe.com, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,880,551
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,130,355
<PP&E>                                             121,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (20,623)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,384,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              325,959
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            25,825
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,012,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,384,578
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,755,790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,765,626)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,765,626)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,765,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.14)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB; 1:07-cv-00120-LMB)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 31, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Everett has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED