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

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND
                  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, James R. Famalette, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Gottschalks
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 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 annual 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's
			fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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
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 			controls 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 control over financial reporting.

|September  10, 2004 | By:                                   | /s/ James R. Famalette
|------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|                    | James R. Famalette                   
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Sarah P. Randall, Respondent, *v.*Nora Osborne, Appellant.

Third Department,

May 6, 1914.

County Court—jurisdiction to modify judgment of Justice’s Court.

Where the plaintiff filed a verified complaint in a Justice’s Court, which, if the matters alleged therein were true, entitled her to judgment, and the defendant after a denial of her motion for a dismissal of the complaint refused .to file a verified answer, and the justice dismissed the complaint, the County Court on appeal may, under section 3063 of the Code of Civil Procedure, grant a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Appeal by the defendant, Nora Osborne, from a judgment of the County Court of Hamilton county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office, of the clerk of said county on the 28th *187day of Hay, 1918, reversing a judgment of a Justice’s Court which dismissed the complaint and directing a judgment as prayed for in said Justice’s Court.

*Eugene D. Scribner,*for the appellant.

*William H. Bass [Clarence W. Smith*of counsel], for the respondent.

Smith, P. J.:

In Justice’s Court plaintiff filed a verified complaint which, if the matters therein alleged are true, entitled the plaintiff as matter of law to a judgment for thirty dollars. The defendant appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, which motion was denied. Thereafter the defendant refused to file a verified answer, the effect of which refusal was an admission of the matters alleged in the complaint and entitled the plaintiff to judgment under section 2988 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The justice, however, dismissed the complaint. Upon an appeal to the County Court the judgment of the justice was necessarily reversed, and as the plaintiff’s cause of action stood admitted before the justice the County Court directed the judgment which the justice should have directed. Under section 3063 of the Code of Civil Procedure the County Court is required to render judgment according to the justice of the case, and may affirm, modify or reverse the judgment in whole or in part. What the County Court in effect did was to modify the judgment from a judgment of dismissal to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, to which judgment plaintiff was entitled as matter of law. This was clearly within the power of the County Court, and the judgment appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
### SUBCHAPTER III—PREFERENTIAL PROGRAMS
#### In the Matter of Edward K. Somborn, Deceased.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                                SPIRE CORPORATION
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                             ----------------------------
                                                                                1998              1997
                                                                             ----------        ----------

<S>                                                                          <C>               <C>       
NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - (BASIC)

     Net earnings                                                            $   17,159        $  150,294
                                                                             ==========        ==========

     Weighted average number common shares outstanding                        3,216,869         3,020,025
                                                                             ==========        ==========

     Net earnings per common share - (basic)                                 $     0.01        $     0.05
                                                                             ==========        ==========

NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - (DILUTED)

     Net earnings                                                            $   17,159        $  150,294
                                                                             ==========        ==========

     Weighted average number common shares outstanding                        3,216,869         3,020,025

     Add net additional common shares upon exercise of common stock options     134,041                 0
                                                                             ----------        ----------

     Adjusted average common shares outstanding                               3,350,910         3,020,025
                                                                             ==========        ==========

     Net earnings per common share - (diluted)                               $     0.01        $     0.05
                                                                             ==========        ==========
</TABLE>



                                       12
#### Francis R. Feelan et al. *v.*Howard G. Feelan et al.

Alcorn, C. J., House, Thim, Ryan and Barber, Js.

Argued October 13

decided November 3, 1970

*549
      *Howard B. Steeg,*for the appellant (named defendant).

*Arnold M. Sweig,*for the appellees (plaintiffs Francis R. and Hazel C. Feelan).

Peb Ctjbiam.

In this action for an accounting, the referee, acting as a court, on December 12, 1968, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs against the named defendant in the amount of $10,813.67. The named defendant appealed, and on November 18, 1969, the referee filed a finding in which he concluded that the amount of the indebtedness owed by the named defendant to the plaintiffs was not $10,313.67 but $8,691.47. The finding obviously does not support the judgment appealed from; the discrepancies between the ultimate conclusion reached in the finding and the judgment as rendered involve not only mathematical computations but disputed findings of subordinate facts. On the record before us, we are unable to do otherwise than find error as to the judgment in favor of Francis R. and Hazel C. Feelan against Howard Gr. Feelan.

There is error in part; the judgment is affirmed except as to the amount of damages awarded to Francis R. and Hazel C. Feelan against Howard Gr. Feelan and a new trial is ordered limited to that issue.
#### Louis Doerflinger, Respondent, v. Ovsay Lipetz et al., Appellants.

Order entered December 31, 1947, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Order dated January 20, 1948, and entered January 30, 1948, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed. Order dated and entered January 30, 1948, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. One bill of $20 costs and disbursements is awarded to respondent. No opinion. Settle orders on notice. Present— Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


Name                                                            Jurisdiction of
                                                                  Organization

Progress Bank.....................................................United States
   Progress Holdings, Inc.........................................Pennsylvania
      Progress Leasing Company....................................Maryland
   PBIC, Inc......................................................Delaware
   Pilot Financial Corporation....................................Pennsylvania
   Progress Realty Advisors, Inc..................................Pennsylvania
   Progress Sentry Corporation....................................Pennsylvania
KMR Management, Inc...............................................Pennsylvania
Progress Capital, Inc.............................................Delaware
Progress Capital II, Inc..........................................Delaware
Progress Capital Management, Inc..................................Pennsylvania
Progress Development Corporation..................................Pennsylvania
Progress Financial Resources, Inc.................................Delaware
#### In the Matter of Ira Teeple, Respondent, against Frank I. McKeon et al., Comprising the Board of Elections of the County of Sullivan, Defendants, and Francis A. Hanofee, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Appeal from an order made at the Ulster Supreme Court Special Term wherein it was determined and adjudged that the respondent-appellant was ineligible to hold the office of supervisor of the town of Liberty, Sullivan County] for the reason that he was not the owner of record of real estate in the town of Liberty at the time of his claimed election, and that a certificate of election issued to him on Hovember 18, 1947, by the Board of Elections of Sullivan County was "ineffectual ” and the respondent was restrained " from taking any further step or steps incidental to the office of supervisor in and for the town of Liberty ” and that the supervisor in office elected for a term ending December 31, 1947, and the town board were restrained from delivering to respondent any books, documents or papers pertaining to the office and further the Board of Supervisors of the county were restrained from seating said respondent as supervisor. The decision, order and judgment purported to determine the title to office which cannot be done under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Order reversed, on the law and facts, and the petition dismissed, without costs. Hill, P. J., Heifernan, Brewster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2013

s1021 

# Order

Clerk 

### October 28, 2013

147181

EDWARD MOTLEY,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 147181

AGC: 2693

- 11

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not pe rsuaded that it should grant the requested

relief.
Installment Promissory Note
                          ___________________________



        1.   Promise to Pay.  In consideration of the receipt of $3,000.00,
        the undersigned  promises to pay to the  order of Biosynergy,
        Inc. the sum  of $3,000.00, with interest thereon at  the rate of
        11.5%  per annum,  in two  monthly installments of  principal and
        interest of $1,521.57 commencing October  20, 1996.  This Note is
        payable at 1940 East Devon Avenue, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007.

        2.   Governing Law.   This  instrument shall be  governed by  the
        laws  of  the State  of  Illinois, and  specifically  the Uniform
        Commercial Code of the State of Illinois, as  in effect from time
        to time.

        Date:  September 20, 1996


        STEVIA COMPANY, INC.
        1940 East Devon Avenue
        Elk Grove Village, IL 60007


         ________________________________
         Fred K. Suzuki, President


         _________________________________
         Lauane C. Addis, Secretary


<PAGE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CARLOS OMAR HEREDIA-NIEBLAS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10341 

D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00522-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Omar Heredia-Nieblas appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) 

and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Heredia-Nieblas’s 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-10341 

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a 

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Heredia-Nieblas the 

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 

answering brief has been filed. 

Heredia-Nieblas waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss 

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Heredia-Nieblas’s motions to file the supplemental excerpts of record under 

seal are GRANTED. The Clerk shall file both volumes of the supplemental 

excerpts of record at Docket Entry Nos. 23 and 24, as well as the motions to seal 

themselves, under seal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 23, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11386

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00005-CR-FTM-33-SPC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ARMANDO VIDAL ENCINAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(October 23, 2006)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Counsel in this direct criminal appeal has moved to withdraw and filed a
2

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967). The defendant has moved, pro se, for the appointment of substitute

counsel. 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 record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED, Vidal Encinas’s motion for the appointment of substitute

counsel is DENIED, and Vidal Encinas’s convictions and sentences are

AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000442 26-APR-2017 10:34 AM
### §126. Authorization of appropriations for construction of hospital facilities

For the purpose specified in section 124 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the construction of a building or buildings and facilities, including equipment, and for remodeling of existing buildings (including repair and replacement of equipment) which are to be combined with the building or buildings and facilities so constructed, to provide a hospital with a capacity of not to exceed five hundred beds.

(Pub. L. 87–262, §3, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 543.)
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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

I, Walter A. Shephard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that theQuarterly Report of Zygo Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Zygo Corporation. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zygo Corporation and will be retained by Zygo Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest. 

|   | Dated**:**November          9, 2007

/s/ Walter A. Shephard                                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### JOHNSON, et al, Respondents, v. THE FEDERAL LAND BANK OF OMAHA, Appellant.

(269 N. W. 567.)

(File No. 7951.

Opinion filed November 16, 1936.)

*Bielski. Elliott & McQuillen*and *Conway, Beyder & Conway,*all of Sioux Palls, and *Claw L. Kints,*of Omaha, Neb., for Appellant.

*T. R. Johnson,*of Sioux Falls, for Respondents.

PER1 CURIAM.

The question presented 'by this appeal is identical with that arising in the case of Kapaun v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 64 S. D. 635, 269 N. W. 564, opinion this day filed, and the cases have been submitted on the same briefs. Pursuant to the views stated in the opinion in the Kapaun Case, the order here appealed from is reversed, and the matter remanded to the circuit court, with directions to enter an order dismissing the petition of the mortgagor.

All the Judges concur, excepting RUDOLPH, J., who deems himself disqualified, and does not sit.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 361.58

 361.58

 361.60

 361.61

 361.51

 361.52

 361.43

 361.35

 361.30

 361.27

 361.27

 361.30

 361.27

 361.20

 361.11

 361.02

 361.02

 361.04

 361.04

 361.02

 360.93

 360.93

 360.93

 360.93

 360.93

 360.93

 360.85

 360.76

 360.65

 360.52

 648

 648

 649

 650

 643

 643

 637

 632

 628

 626

 626

 628

 626

 621

 615

 608

 608

 610

 610

 608

 602

 602

 602

 602

 602

 602

 597

 590

 583

 573

STORAGE

-4

+0

+1

+1

-7

+0

-6

-5

-4

-2

+0

+2

-2

-5

-6

-7

+0

+2

+0

-2

-6

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-5

-7

-7

-10

CHANGE

 376

 361

 336

 305

 328

 342

 373

 387

 366

 371

 371

 336

 360

 345

 383

 383

 347

 333

 363

 401

 417

 400

 400

 391

 348

 313

 353

 361

 320

 379

 4,632

 4,512

 4,515

 4,543

 4,388

 4,268

 4,109

 3,882

 3,642

 3,506

 3,511

 3,521

 3,501

 3,378

 3,122

 2,849

 2,752

 2,756

 2,758

 2,754

 2,615

 2,511

 2,507

 2,515

 2,512

 2,525

 2,379

 2,142

 1,902

 1,640

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2017 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2017

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -79 0 96,147 10,849

ACRE-FEET -79 0 190,708 21,519

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 47,269

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 21,519

 259,496

 652

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 5,893

 5,730

 5,698

 5,618

 5,481

 5,282

 5,112

 4,855

 4,658

 4,580

 4,584

 4,626

 4,706

 4,618

 4,493

 4,321

 4,169

 4,169

 4,173

 4,163

 4,058

 3,986

 4,012

 4,012

 3,942

 3,798

 3,638

 3,382

 3,121

 2,922

 133,800

 265,392

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

SOUTH MAIN OPERATED BY OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 190,708

 879

 839

 827

 784

 737

 632

 618

 566

 601

 657

 629

 724

 808

 788

 877

 947

 914

 912

 892

 849

 836

 868

 894

 894

 881

 817

 811

 782

 765

 803

 23,831

 47,269

RIVER CANALS
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear by T.D. ATF-437, 66 FR 5478, 5479, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 25.111 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart, the following terms have the meanings indicated:

*Dealer.* A person who sells, or offers for sale, any alcohol product (distilled spirits, wines, and/or beer) fit for beverage use.

*Retail dealer in liquors.* A dealer who sells, or offers for sale, distilled spirits, wines, or beer to any person other than a dealer.

*Wholesale dealer in liquors.* A dealer who sells, or offers for sale, distilled spirits, wines, or beer to another dealer.

(26 U.S.C. 5121, 5122)