alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
 (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cardinal Ethanol, LLC;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant, as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying 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 fourth fiscal quarter 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 the 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 control 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 controls over financial
reporting.
 Date:      December 22, 2008
    /s/ Jeff PainterJeff Painter, (Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reginald K. CANTLY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11104

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Delonia Anita Watson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Reginald K. Cantly presents arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Hampton,*633 F.3d 334, 337-42 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2011), which held that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) does not require aggregation of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DE*370NIED, 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3386 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3386

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2009

 Mr. Boswell (for himself, Mr. Latham, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Braley of 
   Iowa, and Mr. Loebsack) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Federal Financial Co., Respondent, v Charles Rattoballi, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 25]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover the balance due on promissory notes, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated October 9, 1996, which, upon an order of the same court dated August 8, 1996, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the sum of $48,863.85.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Once the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the defendant, as the party opposing the motion, had the burden of producing proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). The defendant failed to present proof that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff as outstanding on the subject notes were inaccurate or improperly computed. Moreover, the defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims were insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its favor *(see,*12 USC §§ 1821, 1823). Under the circumstances of this case, we need not reach the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in *O’Melveny & Myers v Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.**336(512 US 79) has abrogated the Federal common law *D’Oench*doctrine *(see, D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.,*315 US 447). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 207 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3547 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 8, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, as the 

‘‘Rex E. Lee Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REX E. LEE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 936 South 250 East in Provo, 

6 Utah, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rex E. Lee 

7 Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3547 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rex E. Lee Post Of5 fice Building’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 207 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3547 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. Provo, Utah, as the ‘‘Rex E. Lee Post Office al Service located at 936 South 250 East in 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


         I, Edward T. Whelan,  Chief Executive Officer of Military Resale Group,
Inc. (the "Registrant"),  do 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 best of my knowledge,  based upon a review of the  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 of the Registrant,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

         (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.


                                                By: /S/ EDWARD T. WHELAN
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Name: Edward T. Whelan Title:
                                                Chief Executive Officer


September 3, 2003

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

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Military Resale Group,  Inc. and will be retained by Military Resale
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.




                                       32
<PAGE>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 15

- 490C

(Filed February 1 1 , 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

PETERSON INDUSTRIAL *

DEPOT, INC

. , *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

T he Court yesterday he ld oral argument on the government’s motion to

dismiss from this case two of plaintiff’s three claims. † The complaint alleges both

that the government breached a contract to transfer a property interest and also

took that property interest without paying just com pensation. Compl. ¶¶ 40

– 52.

The government moves to dismiss the takings claim because it is predicated on a

contract with the government. Mot. at 10

– 12.

Plaintiff has clarifie d that its takings claim is ple d in the alternative. Resp.

at 4. In light of that clarification, and particularly since the government could not

rule out the possibility of raising the sovereign acts defense, the Court finds that the

appropriate course of action is to stay consideration of the takings claim. See

Century Expl. N

ew Orleans, Inc. v. United States , 103 Fed. Cl. 70 , 81

– 83 (2012) ; s ee

also Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States , 583 F.3d 1344 , 1368

– 69 (Fed. Cir.

2009) . Accordingly the motion to dismiss the first cause of action is DENIED , and

the takings claim is STAYED , pending the resolution of the contract breach claim.

† Plaintiff did not oppose the government’s motion to dismiss its promissory

estoppel claim. Pl.’s Resp. at 1. The motion is GRANTED as to that claim.- 2

-

The third cause of action is DISMISSED under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the

United States Court of Federal Claims because it is not within our court’s

jurisdiction.

Defendant shall file its answer to the remaining portions of the complaint on

or by Wednesday, February 2 5 , 2016

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Victor J. Wolski

VICTOR J. WOLSKI

Judge
H. R. 3325 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to reauthorize for 1 year the Work 

Incentives Planning and Assistance program and the Protection and Advocacy 

for Beneficiaries of Social Security program. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘WIPA and PABSS Reauthorization Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE WORK INCENTIVES PLANNING AND 

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

Section 1149(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b– 

20(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR 

BENEFICIARIES OF SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM. 

Section 1150(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b– 

21(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60589

Conference Calendar

 

GARRY LEE MOORE; JERRY

LEE QUINN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

H. E. COOPER, JR.; LAWANDA

IRBY MORRIS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-126 D-D

- - - - - - - - - -

February 10, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Garry Lee Moore, Mississippi prisoner # 46504, and former

prisoner Jerry Lee Quinn request leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) in their appeal from the district court’s denial

of Moore’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Quinn did not sign the

Rule 60(b) motion, and thus, he was not a party to the motion. 

His appeal from the district court’s denial of the motion is

without basis in law or fact and, thus, frivolous. Howard v.
No. 97-60589

-2-

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). His request for IFP

is DENIED. The appeal as to Quinn is DISMISSED.

Moore is BARRED from proceeding IFP under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) because, on at least three

prior occasions while incarcerated, Moore has brought an action

or appeal in a United States court that was dismissed as

frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, he may not proceed IFP in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Moore’s request for IFP is DENIED, and the appeal as

to Moore is also DISMISSED. 

Moore has 30 days from the date of this opinion to pay the

full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district

court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal. 

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.1





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




In connection with the annual report of China Marketing Media Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yingsheng Li, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/Yingsheng LiYingsheng LiPresident and Chief Executive Officer




November 29, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Marketing Media Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by China Marketing Media Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 42223-9-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 2012.]

#### *In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Terrell Edward Jones, *Petitioner.*

Petition for relief from personal restraint. *Denied*by unpublished opinion per

Johanson, A.C.J.,

concurred in by Hunt and Penoyar, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Alarion Financial Services, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Matthew Ivers, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Matthew Ivers                         
|                     |  |     |  | Matthew Ivers, Principal Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10211.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Kathleen Bliss, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph Hall, Atwater, CA, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

*722Joseph Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure section 41(e) motion for the return of seized currency. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the government failed to comply with the due process notice requirement because it failed to ensure that he was personally served with the notice of the pending forfeiture proceedings. The record reflects that, by delivering a certified-mail notice of pending administrative forfeiture proceedings addressed to Hall at the detention center where he was incarcerated and receiving a receipt confirming delivery, the government complied with the due process notice requirements for property seizure. *See Dusenbery v. United States,*534 U.S. 161, 168-71, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Crippa, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 781]

Cardona, P. J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of three counts of the crime of burglary in the third degree, and (2) by permission, from two orders of said court, entered August 5, 1995 and July 29, 1996, *812which denied defendant’s motions pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence following his conviction, without a hearing.

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of 13 charges contained in two superior court informations and multiple other pending charges. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate prison term of 7 to 14 years based upon a prior out-of-State felony conviction. Defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence on the ground that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender. County Court denied the motion. Thereafter, defendant made a second motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence based upon ineffective assistance of counsel which was also denied. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and the orders denying his CPL 440.20 motions.

At sentencing, County Court informed defendant of his right to challenge the constitutionality of the out-of-State conviction and the factual information contained therein. Defendant, who was represented by counsel and consulted with him, declined to challenge the predicate felony statement and made no objection to being sentenced as a second felony offender. Notwithstanding defendant’s contention to the contrary, we find that County Court adequately apprised him of his right to challenge the prior out-of-State conviction *(see,*CPL 400.21; *see generally, People v Polanco,*232 AD2d 674). Furthermore, we find no error in County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the sentence on the ground that his prior out-of-State felony conviction did not qualify as a predicate felony under applicable State law. Defendant waived his right to challenge the use of the prior conviction and its validity by failing to controvert the use thereof or request a hearing thereon *(see, People v Barton,*200 AD2d 888, *lv denied*83 NY2d 849; *People v Andre,*132 AD2d 560, *lv denied*70 NY2d 797; *see also, People v Shriay,*240 AD2d 783; *People v Russell,*234 AD2d 979, *lv denied*89 NY2d 988; *cf., People v Stinson,*151 AD2d 842).

We also reject defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel’s failure to challenge the predicate felony statement does not establish that counsel was ineffective *(see, People v Barton, supra; see also, People v Nadal,*240 AD2d 595, 596). Viewed in totality, defense counsel provided meaningful representation by negotiating a favorable plea bargain that substantially reduced defendant’s exposure to a more lengthy prison term *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147; *People v Barton, supra).*

*813Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and orders are affirmed.