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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert L.Voelk, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omtool, Ltd.;

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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

**b)[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986 and 33-8618.]**

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006
|        | By:    |  /s/ Robert L. Voelk |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Robert L. Voelk           |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer   |   |

 

1

----
#### Murray Fabricant v. Hyed Realty Corp. et al.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before October 4, 1960, with notice of argument for the November 1960 Term of this court, said appeals to be argued or submitted when reached; and on the further condition that appellants continue the bond heretofore posted and pay plaintiff the sum of $500 per month for the use and occupancy of the mortgaged premises, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2430 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2430

To extend the duty reduction on ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene copolymer 
                                (ETFE).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

 Mr. Mollohan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the duty reduction on ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene copolymer 
                                (ETFE).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ETHYLENE/TETRAFLUOROETHYLENE COPOLYMER (ETFE).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene 
copolymer (ETFE)) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting 
``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.101 Practicing polygamists.

An immigrant alien shall be ineligible under INA 212(a)(9)(A) only if the alien is coming to the United States to practice polygamy.
#### Catherine Hill, Respondent, v New York Hospital et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 568]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J., and a jury), entered August 30, 1999, in a medical malpractice action, *inter alia,*awarding plaintiff, upon her stipulation in lieu of . a new trial *118on damages, $500,000 for past pain and suffering and $1 million for future pain and suffering, before structuring, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s findings of liability against defendant doctors for both medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, and against defendant hospital based on agency by estoppel *(see, Sarivola v Brookdale Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*204 AD2d 245). The qualifications of plaintiff’s medical expert went to the weight rather than the admissibility of his testimony, and his credibility was therefore a question for the jury *(see, Fuller v Preis,*35 NY2d 425, 431-432). The award of damages, as stipulated, does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., • Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT




TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906




OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




August
14, 2008








/s/ H. Dean Cubley


H. Dean
Cubley


Chief
Executive Officer
### §300n–1. Description of intended uses of grant

The Secretary may not make a grant under section 300k of this title unless—

(1) the State involved submits to the Secretary a description of the purposes for which the State intends to expend the grant;

(2) the description identifies the populations, areas, and localities in the State with a need for the services or activities described in section 300k(a) of this title;

(3) the description provides information relating to the services and activities to be provided, including a description of the manner in which the services and activities will be coordinated with any similar services or activities of public and private entities; and

(4) the description provides assurances that the grant funds will be used in the most cost-effective manner.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XV, §1505, as added Pub. L. 101–354, §2, Aug. 10, 1990, 104 Stat. 414; amended Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2008(c)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 211; Pub. L. 103–183, title I, §101(g)(2), Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2229; Pub. L. 105–392, title IV, §401(b)(6), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3587.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 300n–1, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XV, §1532, as added Jan. 4, 1975, Pub. L. 93–641, §3, 88 Stat. 2251; amended Oct. 8, 1976, Pub. L. 94–460, title I, §117(a), 90 Stat. 1954; Nov. 9, 1978, Pub. L. 95–619, title III, §303(b), (c), 92 Stat. 3248; Oct. 4, 1979, Pub. L. 96–79, title I, §§103(d), 116, 117(b)(5), 93 Stat. 595, 610, 620; Dec. 17, 1980, Pub. L. 96–538, title III, §310, 94 Stat. 3192, provided for procedures and criteria for review of proposed health system changes, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–660, title VII, §701(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3799, effective Jan. 1, 1987.

#### Amendments

1998—Par. (3). Pub. L. 105–392 struck out "nonprofit" before "private entities".

1993—Par. (3). Pub. L. 103–183, §101(g)(2)(A), substituted "public and nonprofit private entities; and" for "public or nonprivate entities (and additionally, in the case of services and activities under section 300k(a)(1) of this title, with any similar services or activities of private entities); and".

Pub. L. 103–43 inserted before semicolon "(and additionally, in the case of services and activities under section 300k(a)(1) of this title, with any similar services or activities of private entities)".

Par. (4). Pub. L. 103–183, §101(g)(2)(B), inserted "will" after "grant funds".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–392 deemed to have taken effect immediately after enactment of Pub. L. 103–183, see section 401(e) of Pub. L. 105–392, set out as a note under section 242m of this title.
#### § 240.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of this Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
#### Hilda Palmer, plaintiff in error, v. James Percy Strickland, administrator of the estate of Rufus K. Tabor, deceased, and Mullen Brewing Company, defendants in error.

Gen. No. 27,002.

Action for personal injuries received by plaintiff by falling into a hole in a sidewalk. Judgment for defendants. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 8, 1922.

Rehearing denied November 21, 1922.

John Gibson Hale, for plaintiff in error. Petit, Cummings & Snider, for defendant in error Mullen Brewing Co.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1502.5 Records available at the Foundation.

Records that the FOIA requires be made available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the Foundation's Web site.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

June 30, 2020

a0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2020

160903

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160903

COA: 351403

Newaygo CC: 12

- 010152

- FH;

KEITH ALLEN BAGLEY, 12

- 010153

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the December 10, 2019

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of James H. O’Brien, Petitioner, v James P. Melton, as Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Saratoga County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles which revoked petitioner’s driver’s license. Petitioner was arrested during the early morning hours of August 30, 1975 for driving while intoxicated after the automobile he was operating collided with a State Police vehicle stopped on the highway with its emergency lights flashing. The only issue for our determination is whether there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner thereafter refused to take the required chemical test (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194). The record discloses that in the course of unsuccessful efforts to contact his attorney, petitioner was undecided about taking that test, but finally did state unequivocally that he would not. His later change of mind would not, under the circumstances presented, suffice to undo that refusal (see *Matter of Burns v Melton, 59*AD2d 975; *Matter of White v Fisher,*49 AD2d 450). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Janus Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard A. Tonges, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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/ Richard A. Tonges
---------------------------
Richard A. Tonges
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Morrison, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Philip J. Levine, Esq., 30 Bay Street, Staten Island 1, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT L. SPRUELL,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-5033 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On November 1, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the

California Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has

filed an answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-05033-MMC Document 7 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05033-MMC Document 7 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 97-31124

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-31124

Summary Calendar

 

RICHARD W. MONK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, 

Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-4

- - - - - - - - - -

August 26, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Monk, Louisiana prisoner # 106091, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s limitations period. 

Because Monk filed his § 2254 petition within one year of the effective date (April 24, 1996) of

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), his filing was timely. See United

States v. Flores, 135 F.3d 1000, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1998)(holding that there is a one-year grace 

period for imposing the analogous limitations period for filing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions enacted

by the AEDPA). The district court’s judgment dismissing Monk’s petition as time barred is

VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27042]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-3612; MB Docket No. 04-287, RM-11044]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Booneville, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

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

SUMMARY: The Audio Division dismisses a Petition for Rule Making filed 
by Eastern Kentucky Educational Radio, requesting the allotment of 
Channel 227A at Booneville, Kentucky as that community's first local 
aural transmission service. See 69 FR 48443, August 10, 2004. Eastern 
Kentucky Educational Radio nor any other party, filed comments in 
support of the allotment of Channel 227A to Booneville, Kentucky. It is 
the Commission's policy to refrain from making a new allotment to a 
community absent a bona fide expression of interest.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-287, adopted November 17, 2004, and 
released November 22, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours 
at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of 
this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-27042 Filed 12-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE

RE VOLUMINOUS MOTIONS

Both sides filed many summary judgment motions. The Court has been patiently working

its way through them and has now issued four separate orders on them. By 9:00 A.M. FRIDAY,

APRIL 9, please advise the Court which, if any, remaining motions counsel truly needs an order

on, even if abbreviated, with one sentence each explaining why it cannot wait until the charging

conference or at least until the final pretrial conference. Do not use this as an opportunity to

submit more argument or authorities or evidence. One page will do. 

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02984-WHA Document 30 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2466 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel hair. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. SIMMONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel hair. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAMEL HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.42.02 Camel hair, not processed in 

any manner beyond the 

degreased or carbonized condition (provided for in subheading 5102.19.20) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2466 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ