alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**
I, John P. Calamos, Sr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
March 30, 2005
/s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.
#### CULLINAN, Respondent, v. KEMBLE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate D vision, First Department.

November 6, 1903)

Action by Patrick W. Cullinan against Howai Kemble and others.

C. C. Nadal, for appelants. H. H. Kellogg, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, wii costs, on the authority of Cullinan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 84 App. Div. 296, 82 N. Y. Supp. 827.
#### § 33.3 Consultation.

By appointment, applicants or their representatives may visit the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Approval and Certification Center, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059, to discuss with MSHA personnel proposed designs of equipment to be submitted in accordance with the regulations of this part. No charge is made for such consultation and no written report thereof will be made to the applicant.

[70 FR 46343, Aug. 9, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 52213, Sept. 9, 2008]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDegradation of Beta Cloth Covering for a Battery Orbital Replacement Unit in Low Earth OrbitSamples from the beta cloth cover for a battery orbit replaceable unit from the International Space Station (ISS) were characterized using optical and electron microscopy, UV-vis-NIR spectrophotometry, and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy. Results showed that in areas where the fabric was exposed to solar radiation the absorptance increased by as much as 20 percent, and the peak difference was in the ultraviolet, indicating that the increased absorptance may have been due to radiation. The emissivity of the material over a temperature range of 300 to 700 K was essentially unchanged.Document ID20160014803Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGaier, James R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Waters, Deborah L.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Baldwin, Sammantha*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Folz, Angela D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Loos, Alyssa*(Manchester Coll. North Manchester, IN, United States)*Date AcquiredDecember 22, 2016Publication DateDecember 1, 2016Subject CategorySpace Sciences (General)Space RadiationReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-219404GRC-E-DAA-TN33887E-19305AIAA Paper 2016-5383Meeting InformationMeeting: Space 2016Location: Long Beach, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: September 13, 2016End Date: September 16, 2016Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)WBS: WBS 811076.01.04.01.05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsSolar PhysicsAvailable DownloadsNameType20160014803.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20170003925See AlsoDegradation of Beta-Cloth Covering for a Battery Orbital Replacement Unit in Low Earth Orbitvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT
      23.2





[Letterhead
      of Peter Ott & Associates Inc.]








OccuLogix,
      Inc.


2600
      Skymark Drive


Unit
      9,
      201


Mississauga,
      ON


L4W
      5B2








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED BUSINESS VALUATOR**





We
      consent to the reference to our company under the caption “Experts” in the
      Annual Report of OccuLogix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
      December 31, 2006, including any amendments thereto, and to the use of our
      valuation recommendation reports dated December 5, 2006 and March _____, 2007,
      respectively, with respect to the valuation analyses of the fair value of
      certain net assets of the Company (collectively, the “Valuation Reports”) and to
      the incorporation by reference of the Valuation Reports in the Company’s
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-124505) filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on April 29, 2005, the Company’s Registration
      Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-137681) filed with the SEC on November 28, 2006
      and the Company’s Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. XXX) filed with the SEC
      on March 6, 2007.





Markham,
      Canada /s/
      Peter
      Ott & Associates Inc.


March
      7,
      2007
§ 1229.110 Examination of the State activities under delegation. ( a ) The Department will carry out an annual examination of the State's delegated activities undertaken under the delegation of authority.
( b ) The examination required by this section will consist of a management review and a fiscal examination and evaluation to determine— ( 1 ) That activities being carried out by the State under the delegation of authority meet the standards established by the Department and in particular the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 1735; and
( 2 ) That costs incurred by the State under the delegation of authority are eligible for reimbursement by the Department.
[49 FR 37351, Sept. 21, 1984. Redesignated at 49 FR 40025, Oct. 12, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759440
<NAME> BIG RIVER PRODUCTIONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           108984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   108984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             18637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       90347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     108984
<SALES>                                          98059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 98059
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    16452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  81607
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              78607
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     78607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.523 When do I have to repeat casing diagnostic testing?

Casing diagnostic testing must be repeated according to the following table:

| When . . . | you must repeat diagnostic testing . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (a) your casing pressure request approved term has expired, | immediately. |
| (b) your well, previously on gas lift, has been shut-in or returned to flowing status without gas lift for more than 180 days, | immediately on the production casing (A annulus). The production casing (A annulus) of wells on active gas lift are exempt from diagnostic testing. |
| (c) your casing pressure request becomes invalid, | within 30 days. |
| (d) a casing or riser has an increase in pressure greater than 200 psig over the previous casing diagnostic test, | within 30 days. |
| (e) after any corrective action has been taken to remediate undesirable casing pressure, either as a result of a casing pressure request denial or any other action, | within 30 days. |
| (f) your fixed platform well production casing (A annulus) has pressure exceeding 10 percent of its minimum internal yield pressure (MIYP), except for production casings on active gas lift, | once per year, not to exceed 12 months between tests. |
| (g) your fixed platform well's outer casing (B, C, D, *etc.,* annuli) has a pressure exceeding 20 percent of its MIYP, | once every 5 years, at a minimum. |

[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011. Redesignated at 77 FR 50894, Aug. 22, 2012]
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Michael W. Zima, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his
knowledge:




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 results of operation of the Company.





/s/   Michael
      W. ZimaMichael
      W. Zima
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                November
      12, 2010
#### In the Matter of Amelio P. Marino et al., Petitioners, v Allen M. Meyers, Respondent.

Application in this article 78 proceeding unanimously denied and petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners’ refusal to testify, as directed, was contumacious. The court’s inquiries were basically relevant to a determination of the issue whether petitioners’ client was entitled to a transcript of the proceedings, free of charge. If petitioners felt that some of the court’s proposed questions were beyond the scope of such inquiry or were otherwise objectionable, they could have objected, as they saw fit, to the impropriety thereof, as each question was put. But they could not, in the first instance, refuse to testify. Even though the original issue of petitioners’ client’s eligibility for a free transcript is now academic, petitioners still have the opportunity of purging themselves of their contempt. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
DISMISS in Part and DENY in Part; and Opinion File May 23, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00665-CV

IN RE ANDREW DAVID MALONE JR., Relator

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F86-95910-QN

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Fillmore 

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

The Court has before it relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asking us to order the trial 

court to “immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the motion ‘nunc pro 

tunc’ pre-sentence jail time credits.” To the extent relator complains the trial court is not 

properly forwarding to the Court of Criminal Appeals documents related to his article 11.07 

post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction over the petition. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012); In re Hampton, No. 05-07-00440-

CV, 2007 WL 1168446, at * 1 (Tex. App.–– Dallas Apr. 20, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

To the extent relator is asking this Court to order the trial court to rule on his motion for a 

judgment nunc pro tunc awarding him additional back time credit, we conclude the record does 

not show appellant is entitled to the relief sought. See Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320–

21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (orig. proceeding); State of Tex. ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding).
–2–

We dismiss in part and deny in part relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

130665F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
#### § 33.30 Test site.

Tests shall be conducted at an appropriate location determined by MSHA.

[39 FR 24005, June 28, 1974]
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-1 No. 333-119852 and Form S-4 No. 333-119231) of Nalco Finance Holdings LLC and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 27, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Nalco Finance Holdings LLC, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Nalco Finance Holdings LLC, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
February 27, 2008

---
### SUBCHAPTER I—REQUIREMENTS
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

#### § 982.3 HUD.

The HUD field offices have been delegated responsibility for day-to-day administration of the program by HUD. In exercising these functions, the field offices are subject to HUD regulations and other HUD requirements issued by HUD headquarters. Some functions are specifically reserved to HUD headquarters.
§ 49.5 Mine rescue station. ( a ) Except where alternative compliance is permitted, every operator of an underground mine shall designate, in advance, the location of the mine rescue station serving the mine.
( b ) Mine rescue stations are to provide a centralized storage location for rescue equipment. This centralized storage location may be either at the mine site, affiliated mines, or a separate mine rescue structure.
( c ) Mine rescue stations shall provide a proper storage environment to assure equipment readiness for immediate use.
( d ) Authorized representatives of the Secretary shall have the right of entry to inspect any designated mine rescue station.
#### § 282.15 [Reserved]
* 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. 00-40875

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PERFECTO CRUZ-BOLANOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-80-1

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

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Perfecto Cruz-Bolanos appeals the 46-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of

the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Cruz-Bolanos acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
No. 00-40875

-2-

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 26,

2001)(No. 00-8299). Cruz-Bolanos’s argument is foreclosed. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0172

CITY OF COLUMBIA FALLS,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BONNIE L. CHAPMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 29, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 25 2020

03/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0172
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Roscoe Johnson

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14677.

*Richard Emanuel,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Mitchell S. Brody,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided January 21, 1993

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 584 (AC 10084), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“ 1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that an arguably indigent defendant, who has been sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years and the maximum fine of $50,000 for a single offense, may not challenge the imposition of that fine until he has served the fifteen year sentence?

‘‘2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court’s definition of reasonable doubt as *‘a*doubt for which a valid reason may be assigned,’ was not reviewable, or if it was reviewed on its merits, was not erroneous?”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tirek Garrett, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 910]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered November 13, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction of murder in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, including the element of intent, beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Calabria,*3 NY3d 80, 81-82 [2004]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001022176
<NAME> CLASS B
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,671,236
<SECURITIES>                                 7,484,652
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,132,466
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,132,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,570,466
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,562,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,132,466
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          (11,153,799)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,992,948
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,146,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,146,747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,118,314)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (553.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (553.22)


</TABLE>