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

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

I, Dwight McLellan, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Aspen Racing  Stables,
     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.   I am 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
          Company, 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 Company'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.

5.   I have disclosed,  based on my 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  that  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.

Date:    February 8, 2008                       /s/ Dwight McLellan
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Dwight McLellan
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2049

MARIA CHAVALAN

- SUT , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : June 25, 2024 Decided: July 12, 2024

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Alina Marie Kilpatrick, SUDESTE IMMIGRATION LAWYERS PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, C ivil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2049 Doc: 32 Filed: 07/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Maria Chavalan

- Sut, a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her second motion to reopen seeking to
rescind her in absentia order of removal. We have reviewed t he record and the IJ’s decision and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal. See
Garcia Hernandez v. Garland , 27 F.4th 263, 266 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review). Chavalan

- Sut’s contention that the IJ did not have authority to order her removed in absentia because the notice to appear did not indicate the time and place for the removal proceedings is without merit. See Cedillos

- Cedillos v. Barr , 962 F.3d 817 , 823 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that requirement that notice to appear include time and date of proceedings is not jurisdictional).
That leaves Chavalan

- Sut’s contention that she was denied due process because she did not receive the notice at all. She does not dispute that the notice was sent to her last
known address and was not returned as undeliverable. She must therefore rebut the “presumption of effective delivery” we afford the agency. Nibagwire v. Gonzales , 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). Because she has failed to do so, we reject her constitutional argument as well.
Ac cordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2049 Doc: 32 Filed: 07/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                             516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7467
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9019
<PP&E>                                           11206                                       
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   33732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4154
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            24
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          6
<OTHER-SE>                                       12956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     33732
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1220
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    538
<INCOME-TAX>                                        93
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       445
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04                                      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
DENY and Opinion Filed May 12, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00969-CV 

IN RE BARBARA JOHNSON, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-10-14794 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

 Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, 

relator challenges the trial court’s order dismissing as untimely relator’s appeal of 

the associate judge’s temporary orders in the underlying family court proceeding. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Copart, Inc., 619 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)). As 

the party seeking relief, relators have the burden of providing the Court with a 

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to establishing their right 

to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 
 –2– 

757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (requiring relator to submit a 

record containing certified or sworn copies). Because not all of the documents 

included in the record are certified by a trial court clerk or adequately sworn copies, 

we conclude relator has failed to meet this burden. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to 

refiling a petition with a record that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 52. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). 

210969F.P05 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE
#### COLEMAN et al. v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. et al.

No. 25790.

Dec. 11, 1934.

Franklin H. Griggs, for plaintiffs in error.

C. A. Steele and W. A. Daugherty, for defendants in error.

PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiffs in error were defendants and defendants in error were plaintiffs in the lower court, and will be so designated in this opinion.

Plaintiffs filed their petition June IS, 1932, seeking a judgment on a promissory note and foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure the same, and, under date of February 3, 1933, the judgment of the court was entered, granting judgment to the plaintiff as prayed and ordering foreclosure of real estate. The appeal is by transcript and purported bill of exceptions, but none of the evidence, if any was introduced, is shown, and no exception to the judgment of the court is made, and the only objection in the record to the order of the court overruling the motion to vacate the order approving sale. No evidence is in the record which shows what basis the court entered its order denying the application to set aside the sale, or what errors were committed, if any.

This court has held that where, upon examination of the record, the assignments of error, and the motion to dismiss, the appeal is manifestly without merit and taken for delay only, the same will be dismissed. Wetumka Ice Corporation v. Williams, 163 Okla. 169, 21 P. (2d) 742; Johnson v. Mills Produce Co.., 163 Okla. 121, 21 P. (2d) 1053; Semler v. State, 163 Okla. 58, 20 P. (2d) 1041.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-294-000 and ER01-294-001]

Ameren Energy Development Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

February 14, 2001.
    Ameren Energy Development Company (Ameren Energy) submitted for 
filing a rate schedule under which Ameren Energy will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. 
Ameren Energy also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. 
In particular, Ameren Energy requested that the Commission grant 
blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by Ameren Energy.
    On February 9, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Ameren Energy should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Ameren is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Ameren's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is March 12, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4574 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6889

DONNIE RAY WINSTON, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

JOHN NEIL VAUGHAN, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00080-GCM) 

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Donnie Ray Winston, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Donnie Ray Winston seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. See 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 

Winston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny his motion for 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
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carlos Alberini,President and Chief Operating Officer of Guess?, Inc. (the “Company”), dohereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

·       theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

·       the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: February 28, 2007 | By:    | /s/ CARLOS ALBERINI                   |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Carlos Alberini                       |
|                         |   | President and Chief Operating Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Guess?, Inc. and will be retained by Guess?, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
EXHIBIT 10.33

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                          RELOCATION EXPENSES AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to Relocation Expenses Agreement (this "Amendment") is
made on May 14, 2004 ("Amendment Date"), between Aerospace Products
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 3778 Distriplex Drive North,
Memphis, TN 38118 (the "Company"), and Paul J. Fanelli, an individual, c/o
Aerospace Products International, Inc., 3778 Distriplex Drive North, Memphis, TN
38118 (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto have previously entered into a certain
Relocation Expenses Agreement ("Expenses Agreement") is dated as of February 16,
2004,), the all the terms and conditions of which are incorporated by reference
into this Amendment; and

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to amend the Expenses Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, taking into account the foregoing and in consideration of
the mutual promises and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as
follows, effective as of May 14, 2004:

     I.   Section 3 of the Expenses Agreement is as of the Amendment Date
          revoked and replaced in its entirety by the following provisions:

     3.   While you are on initial assignment in the Memphis vicinity, API will
          provide you with Temporary Living Expense Reimbursement, for yourself
          only, for the earlier of either September 11, 2004 or until your
          family's relocation is completed. Such reimbursement shall include
          your reasonable expenses of lodging, meals, local transportation,
          laundry, and other items, in similar nature and amounts to your
          temporary living expenses practices to date, and shall be paid only in
          accordance with API's regular policies and procedures for Temporary
          Living Expense Reimbursement.

     II.  All other terms and conditions of the Expenses Agreement shall
          continue to remain in full force and effect. No notice of this First
          Amendment need be served pursuant to Section V.1 of the EEA.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
Amendment Date.

AEROSPACE PRODUCTS                          PAUL J. FANELLI
INTERNATIONAL, INC.                         an individual
a Delaware corporation

By:     /s/ Michael C. Culver               /s/ Paul J. Fanelli
        -------------------------           --------------------------
Title:  Chairman of API


                                                    Page 1 of 1
# KIS

# report
2009-1798.

#### Thomas v. State.

Lake App. No. 2008-L-026, 2009-Ohio-5209. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted.
Exhibit 99.1



                            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 Natural Health Trends Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark D. Woodburn, President and Chief Financial 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:

         (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/Mark D. Woodburn

Mark D. Woodburn
President and Chief Financial Officer

March 28, 2003








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
2009-1457.

#### McNeil v. MedCentral Health Sys.

Richland App. No. 2008CA0104, 2009-Ohio-3389.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Interior

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

*Meeting Date and Time:*                         Friday, March 9, 2001, Time 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Address:*                         Yardley Library, 46 W. Afton Ave., Yardley PA 19067.                    

The agenda for the meeting will focus on implementation of the Management Action Plan for the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and State Heritage Park. The Commission was established to assist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its political subdivisions in planning and implementing an integrated strategy for protecting and promoting cultural, historic and natural resources. The Commission reports to the Secretary of the Interior and to Congress.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

C. Allen Sachse, Executive Director, Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 10 E. Church Street, Room A-208, Bethlehem, PA 18018, (610) 861-9345.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

C. Allen Sachse,

Executive Director, Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission.

[FR Doc. 01-4719 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-PE-M