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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frank M. Semple,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q as amended by this Form 10-Q/A ofMarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures****and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  October 20, 2005 | By:    | /s/  FRANK M. SEMPLE     |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                         |   | Frank  M. Semple         |
|                         |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Mercedes Quinones et al., Appellants, v NYRAC et al., Respondents.

[717 NYS2d 36]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 15, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court erred in dismissing on the basis that its order dated May 18, 1999 had dismissed plaintiff’s prior complaint on Statute of Limitations grounds. Although the order in question, as drafted by defendant, did indeed recite that the underlying motion had been made in part “on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely and properly serve the Summons & Complaint within the applicable statute of limitations period,” that language in the settled order is inaccurate. In fact, defendant’s prior dismissal motion had been based upon plaintiffs’ alleged failure to properly serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b (not CPLR 214), and the infant plaintiff’s lack of capacity to sue in the absence of a legal guardian. Moreover, if the Statute of Limitations had been raised and litigated, it would have been clear that the infancy toll of CPLR 208 protected the claims of the infant plaintiff from dismissal on timeliness grounds *(see, Henry v*
      *111
      *City of New York,*94 NY2d 275). To the extent the May 18, 1999 order recited the Statute of Limitations as grounds for dismissal, we consider the erroneous inclusion of this language in the order to have been inadvertent, and deem it stricken.

We further note that in view of positions defendant has taken in the intervening period, personal service of the summons and complaint on Jeff Hauck under Index Number 111531/98 constituted proper service upon defendant, inasmuch as defendant has now conceded its corporate status and Mr. Hauck’s managerial position within the corporation *(see,*CPLR 311 [a] [1]). Additionally, we note that the newly asserted derivative claims by the plaintiffs mother are not protected by the infancy toll *(see, Rosado v Langsam Prop. Serv. Corp.,*251 AD2d 258). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
#### Morris Park Estates, Respondent, Appellant, v. Joseph P. Day and Another, Appellants, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. *933No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Smith and Page, JJ.
#### Robert Hogan, an Infant, by Margaret Hogan, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Salvatore J. Ciancimino, as Administrator of the Estate of Henry Beyers, Deceased, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a collision between two automobiles, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 31, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion the record presents triable issues of fact which should not have been decided on motion. Moreover, in view of the absence of personal knowledge on the part of defendant administrator, he is entitled to defend the action upon a plenary trial of the issues. *(De France*v. *Oestrike,*8 A D 2d 735, and cases there cited.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1514
NANETTE G. LOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, USPS; PHILIP O. BURNS, MDO; ROSE GRAY, Postmaster, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cv-00746-FWB) Submitted: October 6, 2006 Decided: October 30, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nanette G. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nanette G. Love appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Love v. Potter , No. 1:03-cv-00746-FWB (M.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### A. Robert Giordano, Appellant, v Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation & Conservation, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 242]

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated August 22, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the caption and the complaint, and to consolidate the action with other actions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the 2003 payment in the sum of $1,890.42 was a partial payment constituí*898ing an acknowledgment of debt, of which the amount claimed in this action was a part *(see Lew Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*40 NY2d 516 [1976]), the applicable four-year period of limitations *(see*UCC 2-725) was not tolled and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred *(see Lew Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., supra; Stern v Stern Metals, Inc.,*22 AD3d 567 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions either have been rendered academic or are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001020476
<NAME> THE KROLL-O'GARA COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,252
<INVENTORY>                                     25,090
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,560
<PP&E>                                          71,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,195
<BONDS>                                         38,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   289,530
<SALES>                                        251,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               251,490
<CGS>                                          165,779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,034
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,849)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

Summary of Compensation of the Directors of Allin Corporation 

 

At the commencement of each year of service, each non-employee director of Allin Corporation (the “Company”) isentitled to receive an option to acquire 5,000 shares of common stock of the Company at an exercise price equal to the closing price of the common stock on the date of the grant. The option grant will vest on the first anniversary of the date of thegrant if the individual is serving as a director on that date. 

 

Non-employee directors of the Company also receive $2,500 for each Board of Directors meeting attended and $500 for each separate committee meeting attended on a date on which no full board meeting is held. Directors of the Company who arealso employees do not receive additional compensation for attendance at Board and committee meetings. All directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings. 

 

53
#### § 234.10 Payment to USAID of excess amounts received by a Noteholder.

If a Noteholder shall, as a result of USAID paying compensation under this Guarantee, receive an excess payment, it shall refund the excess to USAID.
506.304 Approval of the justification.       (a)                     *Proposing a class justification*. If you determine that the facts supporting other than full and open competition would be present in other GSA contracting activities, you should propose a class justification. Recommend through appropriate channels that the Senior Procurement Executive approve a class justification for all GSA contracting activities. This does not apply to justifications based on the authority of 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(7), which does not permit class justifications.                                          (b)                     *Justifications based on*                    41 U.S.C.253(c)(7). For a justification based on the authority of 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(7) (see FAR 6.302-7), submit the justification for the Administrator’s approval through the SPE.                                          (c)                    *Justifications for contract actions subject to the Agreement on Government Procurement*. When you acquire eligible products without full and open competition using the authority in FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(i) or 6.302-7, furnish a copy of the approved justification to the SPE at spe.request@gsa.gov. The SPE will transmit the justification to the U.S. Trade Representative.                                          (d)                   *Approval for Justifications*. The contracting officer shall obtain approval for justifications for other than full and open competition as required by the approval thresholds in paragraph (e)                                                         (1)Contracting Activity Advocate for Competition approval is required for all justifications for other than full and open competition over $750K.                                                            (2)The contracting officer shall obtain approvals as required by the Service prior to the SPE, as applicable.                                                                             (e)                   *Approval Thresholds*. The following are the minimum approval requirements for justifications. The HCA may further limit approval authority for designated officials or impose lower thresholds. Thresholds include all options.                Threshold                               Approving OfficialUp to but not exceeding $750K                               Contracting OfficerOver $750K to $75M                               HCA or Contracting Executive, if applicableOver $75M                               GSA SPE   **Parent topic:** Subpart 506.3 - Other than Full and Open Competition
§ 224.33 Witnesses. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, testimony at the hearing shall be given orally by witnesses under oath or affirmation.
( b ) At the discretion of the ALJ, testimony may be admitted in the form of a written statement or deposition. Any such written statement must be provided to all other parties along with the last known address of such witness, in a manner which allows sufficient time for other parties to subpoena such witness for cross-examination at the hearing. Prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing and deposition transcripts shall be exchanged as provided in § 224.22(a).
( c ) The ALJ shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to— ( 1 ) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth,
( 2 ) Avoid needless consumption of time, and
( 3 ) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
( d ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
( e ) At the discretion of the ALJ, a witness may be cross-examined on matters relevant to the proceeding without regard to the scope of his or her direct examination. To the extent permitted by the ALJ cross-examination on matters outside the scope of direct examination shall be conducted in the manner of direct examination and may proceed by leading questions only if the witness is a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
( f ) Upon motion of any party, the ALJ shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of: ( 1 ) A party who is an individual;
( 2 ) In the case of a party that is not an individual, an officer or employee of the party appearing for the entity pro se or designated by the party's representative; or
( 3 ) An individual whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its case, including an individual employed by the Government engaged in assisting the representative for the Government.
132 STAT. 5074 PUBLIC LAW 115–354—DEC. 21, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5205: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Dec. 11, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–354 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 701 6th 

Street in Hawthorne, Nevada, as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth Eric Bostic Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT KENNETH ERIC BOSTIC POST OFFICE. 

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

Service located at 701 6th Street in Hawthorne, Nevada, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth Eric Bostic 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth Eric Bostic Post Office’’. 

Approved December 21, 2018. 

Dec. 21, 2018 

[H.R. 5205]
#### Helen H. Epstein v. Carmen Corbelli.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 14, 1962, with notice of argument for the September 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11

ALLIN CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                   (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                     Three Months          Three Months
                                                                         Ended                Ended
                                                                       March 31,             March 31,
                                                                         1998                  1999
                                                                    -----------------     ----------------
<S>                                                                 <C>                   <C> 
Net loss                                                            $         (1,746)     $          (851)
                                                                                            
Accretion and dividends on preferred stock                                        55                  100
                                                                      ---------------       --------------
                                                                                            
Net loss attributable to common shareholders                        $         (1,801)     $          (951)
                                                                      ===============       ==============
                                                                                            
Net loss per common share - basic and diluted                       $          (0.35)     $         (0.16)
                                                                      ===============       ==============
                                                                                            
Weighted average common shares outstanding                                                  
     during the period                                                     5,182,267            5,988,063
                                                                                            
Effect of restricted common stock                                            (24,868)             (18,901)
                                                                      ---------------       --------------
                                                                                            
Shares used in calculating net loss per common                                              
     share                                                                 5,157,399            5,969,162
                                                                      ===============       ==============

</TABLE>
§ 31.26 Quarterly reporting requirement. Each leverage transaction merchant must file, in accordance with the instructions of, and in the format specified by, the National Furtures Association a quarterly report with the National Futures Association by the fifteenth business day of the month following the quarter covered by the report. The report must list all leverage contracts which were either repurchased, resold, liquidated or settled by delivery by or to the leverage transaction merchant during the quarter and, with respect to each leverage contract, must include the following information: ( a ) The leverage commodity and contract involved;
( b ) Whether a long or short leverage contract was involved;
( c ) The date the leverage contract was entered into;
( d ) The maturity date of the leverage contract at initiation;
( e ) The price at which the leverage contract was entered into;
( f ) Whether the leverage contract was repurchased, resold, liquidated or settled by delivery;
( g ) The date the leverage contract was repurchased, resold, liquidated or settled by delivery;
( h ) The price at which the leverage contract was repurchased, resold or liquidated;
( i ) The leverage customer account identification number;
( j ) Whether the leverage customer had a commercial or noncommercial leverage account;
( k ) Whether the leverage customer was the owner or holder of a proprietary leverage account as defined in § 31.4(e); and
( l ) The profit or loss incurred by the leverage customer on the contract. In the case of a long leverage contract, profit or loss shall be determined by subtracting, from the total value of the contract based on the leverage transaction merchant's bid price at the time of repurchase or liquidation, the total value of the contract based on the ask price at which the contract was entered into, minus any amounts paid or owed by the leverage customer to the leverage transaction merchant, including initial, carrying and termination charges, plus any amounts paid or credited by the leverage transaction merchant to the leverage customer, in connection with the leverage contract. In the case of a short leverage contract, profit or loss shall be determined by subtracting, from the total value of the contract based on the bid price at which the contract was entered into, the total value of the contract based on the leverage transaction merchant's ask price at the time of resale or liquidation, minus any amounts paid or owed by the leverage customer to the leverage transaction merchant, including initial and termination charges, plus any amounts paid or credited by the leverage transaction merchant to the leverage customer, including carrying charges, in connection with the leverage contract.
[50 FR 36416, Sept. 6, 1985; 50 FR 37519, Sept. 16, 1985, as amended at 54 FR 41083, Oct. 5, 1989]