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



Exhibit 31.1
 
 I, Adam Blumenfeld, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Collegiate
Pacific Inc. for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2007;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 officer 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:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
    /s/ Adam BlumenfeldAdam Blumenfeld
# **Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PERSUANT TO**

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

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dana D. Messina,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Dana D.  Messina                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)        |

 

March 12, 2004

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toSteinway Musical Instruments, Inc. and will be retained by Steinway MusicalInstruments, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

3

----
#### Ruben DAVTYAN, a.k.a. Ruben Yedigaryan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72331.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

*101Victoria Bezman, Esquire, Law Offices of Victoria Bezman, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ruben Davtyan, native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we review de novo questions of law and due process claims, *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The BIA determined in the first instance that Davtyan could relocate within Armenia to avoid persecution. In light of our intervening decision in *Brezilien v. Holder,*569 F.3d 403, 414 (9th Cir.2009) (remanding because the BIA has not made clear whether internal relocation is a factual or a legal issue), we grant the petition for review as to Davtyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (“Except for taking administrative notice ... the Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.”).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Davtyan failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Armenia. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

*102The IJ acted within his discretion in granting the government’s motion for a continuance and Davtyan was not prejudiced by any bias the IJ may have had. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

Because our review is limited to the administrative record, we decline to consider Davtyan’s Supplemental Background Exhibits. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Davtyan’s request for judicial notice is denied.

The government’s motion to strike Davtyan’s brief is denied.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Calendar No. 563

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1779

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostLitton United States Post Office Building’’. Street in Chillicothe, Missouri, as the ‘‘Jerry L. al Service located at 401 South Washington

AUGUST 12 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Reported with an amendment and an amendment to the

title
II

Calendar No. 563

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1779

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AUGUST 12 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Reported by Mr. GLENN, with an amendment and an amendment to the title

[Insert the part printed in italic]

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 401 South Washington Street in Chillicothe,

Missouri, as the ‘‘Jerry L. Litton United States 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. DESIGNATION.

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 401 South Washington Street in Chillicothe, Mis6 souri, is designated as the ‘‘Jerry L. Litton United States

7 Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1779 RS

1 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

3 map, or other paper of the United States to the facility

4 referred to in section 1 is deemed to be a reference to

5 the ‘‘Jerry L. Litton United States Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 3. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF CER7 TAIN FEDERAL CAREER APPOINTEES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5724(a)(3) of title 5,

9 United States Code, is amended by striking out ‘‘November

10 27, 1988’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘November 17,

11 1988’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by sub13 section (a) shall take effect as if included in the Technical

14 and Miscellaneous Civil Service Amendments Act of 1992

15 (Public Law 102–378; 106 Stat. 1346; 5 U.S.C. 1101 note).

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to designate

the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

401 South Washington Street in Chillicothe, Missouri, as

the ‘Jerry L. Litton United States Post Office Building’,

and to authorize travel and transportation expenses for

certain Federal career appointees, and for other purposes.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
EX-10.2



 







Exhibit 10.2




PENTON MEDIA, INC.




SENIOR MANAGERS — SALE BONUSES




     The Board has previously determined that the Corporation should explore strategic
alternatives, including a sale of the Corporation. Consequently, the Compensation Committee,
comprised of members of the Board, has recommended that the Corporation establish an arrangement to
compensate certain senior managers of the Corporation (see tables below) with sale bonuses, in the
event that the strategic process is not terminated by the Board, and results in a sale of the
Corporation (which may include a sale of a controlling interest in the Corporation).



     The Corporation will pay the following individual a cash bonus if the strategic process
results in a sale of the Corporation:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Sale Bonus
	David Nussbaum
	 	$	400,000	 






     The Corporation will pay a variable cash bonus to the following individuals if the strategic
Process results in a sale of the Corporation:



     Darrell Denny



     Eric Shanfelt



     Jim Ogle



     Preston Vice



     The variable cash bonus paid to the above individuals will be based on the sale proceeds
distributable to holders of the Corporation’s Series C Preferred Stock and common stock that result
from the sale of the Corporation as outlined in the following bonus schedule:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Equity proceeds from sale of company	 	Sale Bonus
	Less than $135,000,000
	 	$	25,000	 
	$135,000,000 or more but less than $145,000,000
	 	$	50,000	 
	$145,000,000 or more but less than $185,000,000
	 	$	100,000	 
	$185,000,000 or greater
	 	$	150,000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,349
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,718
<PP&E>                                         640,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,071
<BONDS>                                        499,523
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         51
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                     139,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   666,803
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,054<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   710
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,017)<F2>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes a nonrecurring charge of $6,131 related to a binding loan commitment
that the Company obtained on June 5, 1996.
<F2>Represents an extraordinary loss of $1,017 (net of minority interests in the
amount of $3,263) on early extinguishment of debt.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
September 30 , 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SPRING BRANCH TOWING , INC D/B/A SB TOW A ND NICHOLAS GARZA

, Appellant s

NO. 14

- 14

- 00131

- CV V.

ANGELA GUERRA

- MANICA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND O F

NORA CRUZ, MINOR CHI LD , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard the parties ’ joint motion to vacate and remand the judgment signed by the court below on August 26, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal VACATED and REMAND to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties ’
agreement.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                           MICROFINANCIAL INCORPORATED
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 REGARDING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
                          QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005

      James R. Jackson Jr., Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
MicroFinancial Incorporated (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best
of his knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Covered Report") and, except as corrected
or supplemented in a subsequent covered report:

-     the Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has signed this Certification as of this
16th of May, 2005.

                                 /s/ James R. Jackson Jr.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 James R. Jackson Jr.
                                 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and Marvin G. Calhoun, dba Calhoun’s Hawthorne Gardens, LLC, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Capital Pacific Bank and Certain HG Tics, Intervenors-Appellees, and Sunwest Mgmt., Inc.; et al., Defendants.

No. 09-36003.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 16, 2010.

*190Marvin G. Calhoun, Vancouver, WA, pro se.

Brent Gordon Summers, Esquire, Tar-low Naito Summers LLP, Portland, OR, for Capital Pacific Bank, Intervenor-Appellee.

Tara J. Schleicher, Esquire, Farleigh Wada Witt, Portland, OR, for Certain HG Tics, Intervenor-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Intervenor Marvin G. Calhoun, dba Calhoun’s Hawthorne Gardens, LLC, appeals pro se from the district court’s order directing him to execute a settlement agreement in accordance with a prior settlement between Calhoun and other parties. We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

We have “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts ...” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The record indicates that the order appealed from is not a final order, rather, the underlying action is in mediation and judgment has not been entered. Moreover, the district court did not certify the matter for immediate appeal. *See*F.R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the absence of such an order, “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties.” *Id.; see Chacon v. Babcock,*640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.1981).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*

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

March 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20157

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVE ANTONIO GRANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-44-ALL 

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dave Antonio Grant appeals his sentence following his guiltyplea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana,

a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court sentenced Grant

to 120 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release,

and a $100 special assessment.

Grant contends that his sentence violates the “Rule of

Speciality” because his sentence was based on a larger drug

quantity than the quantity specified in various documents seeking
2

his extradition from Jamaica. He also asserts that the district

court erred by enhancing his sentence on the basis of certain

judicial findings of fact at sentencing. 

The Government argues that Grant’s plea agreement contains a

waiver of appeal that bars his appeal. Grant argues that the

waiver should not be enforced because it was unknowing,

involuntary, and unconscionable. More particularly, he asserts

that he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute a

larger quantity of marijuana than the quantity determined by

laboratory testing. 

We review de novo whether a waiver provision bars an appeal.

United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). We

determine whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and whether

the waiver applies to the circumstances at issue. United States v.

Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The record reflects that Grant knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to appeal his sentence, except for a sentence in

excess of the statutory maximum or that was the result of an upward

departure from the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v.

Cortez, 413 F.3d 502, 503 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v.

McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005); FED. R. CRIM. P.

11(b)(1)(N). Because Grant’s sentence was not in excess of the

statutory maximum and did not constitute an upward departure from
3

the Guidelines, we DISMISS Grant’s appeal as barred by the waiver

contained in the plea agreement. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 25, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-13560

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-60011-CR-JIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MARCARIOUS FAUGUES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 25, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robin Farnsworth, counsel for Marcarious Faugues, in this direct criminal
2

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Faugues’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of Interlink Electronics,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, E. Michael Thoben,  III, Chairman,  President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

         (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/   E. MICHAEL THOBEN, III
-----------------------------------------------
E. Michael Thoben, III
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
November 16, 2006