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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey F. Joseph, Chief Executive Officer of Presidential Realty Corporation
(the "Company") certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   The Company'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 Company and we have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          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; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any changes in the Company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most
          recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     Company's auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of
     Directors:

     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 Company'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 Company's internal
          control over financial reporting.



  DATE:  November 12, 2003         By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Joseph
                                      --------------------------
                                      Jeffrey F. Joseph
                                      Chief Executive Officer
### **CHAPTER 85—NORTH KOREAN HUMAN RIGHTS**

Sec.
7801.
Findings.
7802.
Purposes.
7803.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—PROMOTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF NORTH KOREANS

7811.
Sense of Congress regarding negotiations with North Korea.
7812.
Support for human rights and democracy programs.
7813.
Radio broadcasting to North Korea.
7814.
Actions to promote freedom of information.
7815.
United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
7816.
Establishment of regional framework.
7817.
Special Envoy on North Korean human rights issues.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—ASSISTING NORTH KOREANS IN NEED

7831.
Report on United States humanitarian assistance.
7832.
Assistance provided inside North Korea.
7833.
Assistance provided outside of North Korea.
7834.
Briefings on the welfare of North Korean children.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—PROTECTING NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES

7841.
United States policy toward refugees and defectors.
7842.
Eligibility for refugee or asylum consideration.
7843.
Facilitating submission of applications for admission as a refugee.
7844.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
7845.
Annual reports.
7846.
Sense of Congress on humanitarian coordination related to the Korean Peninsula.
§ 1002.212 How does a person know whether a particular right or benefit is a seniority-based right or benefit? A seniority-based right or benefit is one that accrues with, or is determined by, longevity in employment. Generally, whether a right or benefit is seniority-based depends on three factors: ( a ) Whether the right or benefit is a reward for length of service rather than a form of short-term compensation for work performed;
( b ) Whether it is reasonably certain that the employee would have received the right or benefit if he or she had remained continuously employed during the period of service; and,
( c ) Whether it is the employer's actual custom or practice to provide or withhold the right or benefit as a reward for length of service. Provisions of an employment contract or policies in the employee handbook are not controlling if the employer's actual custom or practice is different from what is written in the contract or handbook.
# 1 7\4./Liz Cherry witness' opinion testimony limited to opinions or inferences that are ationally based on the perception of the witness; and 

### [h] elpful to a clear understanding of the testimony of the witness or the determination of a fact in issue"); we conclude that any error was harmless, see NRS 178.598; Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946) (stating that test for review of nonconstitutional trial error is whether it "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict"); Knipes v. State, 124 Nev. 927, 935, 192 P.3d 1178, 1183 (2008), considering the substantial evidence pointing to appellant's guilt, including his admission to entering the victims' home and taking property and the discovery of some of the stolen property in appellant's residence. We further conclude that the district court's curative instruction to the jury was sufficient to remedy any prejudice from the error. See Miller v. State, 121 Nev. 92, 99, 

### 110 P.3d 53, 58 (2005) (explaining that instructing jury to disregard improper statements remedies any potential for prejudice); Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333, 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) (court presumes that jurors followed instructions). Accordingly, we



### ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

,J.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Hawkins, Boley & Aldabbagh Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2
§ 355.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the date of mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every such motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Such motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to such motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) When a motion for reconsideration is made, the time periods for appeal to the authority head contained in this section, and for finality of the initial decision in § 355.36(d), shall begin on the date the ALJ issues the denial of the motion for reconsideration or a revised initial decision, as appropriate.
#### § 771.83 Closing of hearings; arguments, briefs, and proposed findings.

Before closing a hearing, the administrative law judge shall inquire of each party whether the party has any further evidence to offer, which inquiry and the response thereto shall be shown in the record. The administrative law judge may hear arguments of counsel and the administrative law judge may limit the time of such arguments at his discretion. The administrative law judge may, in his discretion, allow briefs to be filed on behalf of either party but shall closely limit the time within which the briefs for both parties shall be filed, so as to avoid unreasonable delay. The administrative law judge shall also ascertain whether the parties desire to submit proposed findings and conclusions, together with supporting reasons, and, if so, a period of not more than 15 days (unless extended by the administrative law judge)—after the close of the hearing or receipt of a copy of the record, if one is requested—will be allowed for such purpose.
**Exhibit 13.1**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report of Patni Computer Systems Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-Ffor the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Narendra K. Patni, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1.                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 29, 2007/s/ Narendra K. PatniNarendra K. PatniChief Executive Officer

----
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           U S WEST, Inc.
           RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND
                     PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                       (Dollars in Millions)
<S>                                          <C>      <C>
                                          Quarter Ended
                                           3/31/97  3/31/96
-------------------------------------------------- --------
Income before income taxes, extra-
  ordinary item and cumulative effect
  of change in accounting principles          $400     $489
Interest expense (net of amounts
  capitalized)                                 278      135
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                25       22
Equity losses in unconsolidated
  ventures (less than 50% owned)               105       27
Guaranteed minority interest expense            22       12
                                          -------- --------
Earnings                                      $830     $685

Interest expense                              $288     $159
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                25       22
Guaranteed minority interest expense            22       12
Preferred stock dividends (pre-tax
  equivalent)                                   22        2
                                          -------- --------
Fixed charges                                 $357     $195

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
  charges and preferred stock dividends       2.32     3.51
-------------------------------------------------- --------
</TABLE>
(No. 74-CC-449

#### E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 25, 1974.*

E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
#### In the Matter of Austin W. Carpenter, an Attorney and Counselor at Law.

— Report of referee confirmed and order of disbarment entered. All concurred.
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 HIGH

 21,035

 21,956

 22,029

 21,058

 20,992

 19,430

 18,998

 17,498

 16,552

 17,269

 19,070

 20,366

 20,655

 19,539

 19,791

 18,059

 17,126

 16,930

 15,763

 13,437

 12,571

 12,807

 13,673

 15,157

 16,890

 19,725

 22,052

 23,872

 23,526

 22,090

 6,145

 6,747

 7,717

 8,010

 7,838

 7,410

 7,557

 7,311

 6,903

 6,663

 6,215

 5,826

 6,025

 4,562

 3,417

 3,238

 3,394

 3,855

 3,484

 3,579

 3,819

 3,585

 3,525

 3,484

 3,600

 4,134

 6,068

 8,187

 9,029

 7,865

 13,252

 13,935

 14,413

 14,238

 13,948

 13,124

 12,848

 12,163

 11,539

 11,055

 11,825

 11,842

 11,966

 11,325

 10,417

 9,886

 9,702

 9,790

 8,858

 8,299

 8,034

 7,849

 7,729

 8,342

 9,431

 11,429

 13,669

 15,546

 15,350

 14,755

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 3, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-31265

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

AUDREY DALY, MELVIN LEON WILLIAMS, LENNOX SMITH-STEWART,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CR-182)

______________________________________________________ November 17, 1997 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs and the

argument of counsel and conclude that the evidence is more than

sufficient to support the verdicts and that the district court

committed no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                             PACCAR Financial Corp.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                     PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
                             (Thousands of Dollars)


                                                             Nine Months Ended
                                                                September 30

                                                              1996        1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FIXED CHARGES
  Interest expense                                       $  73,786    $  65,119
  Portion of rentals deemed interest                           183          179
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                      $  73,969    $  65,298
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EARNINGS
  Income before taxes                                    $  39,256    $  33,855
  Fixed charges                                             73,969       65,298
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EARNINGS AS DEFINED                                      $ 113,225    $  99,153
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                           1.53X        1.52X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The method of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges shown above
complies with SEC reporting requirements but differs from the method called for
in the Support Agreement between the Company and PACCAR Inc.  See Exhibit 12.2.


                                       -11-
### Part A—Findings, Purposes, and Statement of Policy
Exhibit
13.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Dejour Enterprises Ltd. (the “Company”) on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Mathew
Wong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





/s/
      Mathew WongMathew
      WongChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting and Financial OfficerJune
      30,
2010





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.  The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not
being filed as part of the annual report or as a separate disclosure
document.
§ 404.464 How does deportation or removal from the United States affect the receipt of benefits? ( a ) *Old-age or disability insurance benefits.* ( 1 ) You cannot receive an old-age or disability benefit for any month that occurs after the month we receive notice from the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General of the United States that you were: ( i ) Deported under the provisions of section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that were in effect before April 1, 1997, unless your deportation was under: ( A ) Paragraph (1)(C) of that section; or
( B ) Paragraph (1)(E) of that section and we received notice of your deportation under this paragraph before March 3, 2004;
( ii ) Removed as deportable under the provisions of section 237(a) of the INA as in effect beginning April 1, 1997, unless your removal was under: ( A ) Paragraph (1)(C) of that section; or
( B ) Paragraph (1)(E) of that section and we received notice of your removal under this paragraph before March 3, 2004; or
( iii ) Removed as inadmissible under the provisions of section 212(a)(6)(A) of the INA as in effect beginning April 1, 1997.
( 2 ) Benefits that cannot be paid to you because of your deportation or removal under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may again be payable for any month subsequent to your deportation or removal that you are lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. You are considered lawfully admitted for permanent residence as of the month you enter the United States with permission to reside here permanently.
( b ) *Dependents or survivors benefits.* If an insured person on whose record you are entitled cannot be paid (or could not have been paid while still alive) an old-age or disability benefit for a month(s) because of his or her deportation or removal under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you cannot be paid a dependent or survivor benefit on the insured person's record for that month(s) unless: ( 1 ) You are a U.S citizen; or
( 2 ) You were present in the United States for the entire month. (This means you were not absent from the United States for any period during the month, no matter how short.)
( c ) *Lump sum death payment.* A lump sum death payment cannot be paid on the record of a person who died: ( 1 ) In or after the month we receive from the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General of the United States notice of his or her deportation or removal under the provisions of the INA specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section (excluding the exceptions under paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (B) and (ii)(A) and (B) of this section); and
( 2 ) Before the month in which the deceased person was thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.
[70 FR 16411, Mar. 31, 2005]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George W. Kingsley, Respondent, against E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
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 HIGH

 4,048

 5,829

 5,576

 5,430

 5,788

 7,677

 7,551

 8,603

 9,279

 7,267

 7,751

 7,340

 6,063

 6,301

 5,407

 4,086

 3,632

 4,804

 5,236

 4,934

 4,992

 4,716

 5,584

 5,253

 4,704

 4,494

 2,931

 3,490

 4,132

 4,529

 489

 646

 845

 985

 1,204

 1,403

 1,117

 1,359

 1,355

 1,131

 941

 946

 1,050

 1,296

 868

 746

 937

 990

 1,015

 859

 834

 704

 709

 625

 600

 531

 542

 614

 670

 522

 1,865

 2,241

 2,461

 2,667

 2,898

 3,393

 3,042

 3,520

 3,826

 3,351

 3,149

 2,960

 2,968

 3,494

 2,735

 1,872

 1,737

 2,020

 2,503

 2,206

 1,940

 1,890

 2,023

 1,828

 1,607

 1,657

 1,611

 1,819

 2,455

 1,853

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 5, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
**EXHIBIT12(c)**

#### **PACCAR and Subsidiaries**

**COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS**

(Millions ofDollars)
| ** **                                         | ** ** | **Six Months Ended** | ** **  |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|-------------|
| ** **                                         | ** ** | **June 30**               | ** **  |
| ** **                                         | ** ** | **2007**                       | ** **  | **2006** | ** ** |
| FIXED CHARGES                                      |       |                           |        |   |   |
| Interest expense  - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (1)    | ** ** | **$**                          | **182.2**   |   | $ | 137.2 |   |
| Portion of  rentals deemed interest                | ** ** | **8.7**                        |        | 9.0 |   |
|                                               | ** ** | ** **                     |        |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                | ** ** | **$**                          | **190.9**   |   | $ | 146.2 |   |
|                                               | ** ** | ** **                     |        |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                           |       |                           |        |   |   |
| Income before  taxes - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) | ** ** | **$**                          | **967.7**   |   | $ | 1,048.8 |   |
| Fixed charges                                      | ** ** | **190.9**                      |        | 146.2 |   |
|                                               | ** ** | ** **                     |        |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS DEFINED                                | ** ** | **$**                          | **1,158.6** |   | $ | 1,195.1 |   |
|                                               | ** ** | ** **                     |        |   |   |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                 | ** ** | **6.07X**                      |        | 8.17X |   |

----

(1) Exclusive of interest, if any,paid to PACCAR.

(2) Includes before tax earnings ofwholly owned subsidiaries.

 

----
(No. 74-CC-597

#### The Flax Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 25, 1974.*

The Flax Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.