alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  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
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Steven J. MalcolmSteven J. MalcolmChief Executive Officer of Williams Partners GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2196

JENNIFER RAQUEL TAYLOR , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KATHERINE H. TIFFANY, Administrative Officer; GREENVILLE COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT; KAREN MCMANAWAY, LLC/Lawyer , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. ( 6:20

- cv - 02291

- JD )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jennifer Raquel Taylor , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2196 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jennifer Raquel Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Taylor’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) . On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir . 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2196 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Arthur C. Milsap et al., Appellants, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 46884.)

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of claimants, entered June 9, 1967, upon a decision of the Court of Claims, for the appropriation of a portion of claimants’ farm for the construction of New York State Route 12 in the Town of Hammond, St. Lawrence County. Appellants’ property consisted of 173.61 acres divided by a highway, Cook Road, which crossed the farm north to south. East of Cook Road were 20 acres of pasture and 80 acres of tillable land. West of the road there was a total of 73 acres. The State appropriated 8.201 plus or minus acres of appellants’ land. The appropriation runs generally parallel with Cook Road. It severed the farm buildings from the permanent pasture and normal night pasture. Also taken was .644 plus or minus acre with access on the north side of appellants’ property. The court’s finding as to direct damages is within the range of the testimony and is adequate. However, the finding as to the consequential damages is improper. The appellants’ expert found a value before the taking of $68,200 and a value after taking of $48,100 for total damages of $20,100. The State’s expert found a value before taking of $49,000 and an after value of $45,000 for total damages of $4,000. The Court of Claims found a before market value of $61,070 and an after value of $53,337 for total damages of $7,733. This decision is patently defective since the after value found is higher than any figure in evidence (see *Asken*v. *State of New York,*25 A D 2d 922; *Lyell Shopping Center*v. *State of New York,*1 A D 2d 77). A total award and its various components must be within the range of expert testimony or supported by other evidence *(Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.],*1 N Y 2d 428) and sufficiently explained by the court *(Spyros*v. *State of New York,*25 A D 2d 696). New or additional findings must be made with reference to this part of the award. Determination of appeal withheld and case remitted to the 'Court of Claims for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision herein. Upon the making of new or additional findings by the Trial Judge, and .the- filing of the record in this court, the ease will be restored to the calendar. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7


                            Real Property Certificate

No sale and purchase is allowed for the real property as stipulated in this
certificate. Any mortgage (pledge) or lease shall be subject to the relevant
regulations.
<PAGE>
                                      OWNER

Namtai Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (100%)****************************


                                      LAND

<TABLE>
<S>                    <C>                         <C>                         <C>
Land No.               A116-0018                   Land Area                   26,313.9m2
Land Use               Industrial                  Location                    Baoan District
Location               Xixiang Town, Baoan District
Lease term             50 years from 26 April 1999 to 25 April 2049
</TABLE>

                          Shenzhen Land No. 5000109464
                                   (Original)


         Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources (Chop)


                       Registration Date 16 February 2004
<PAGE>
                         BUILDING AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

<TABLE>
<S>                     <C>    <C>                                      <C>
Name of real property   Nil
Construction Area       Nil    Construction Area inside boundary        Nil
Purpose                 Nil    Completion Date                          Nil
Registered price        RMB4,210,224.00
</TABLE>

                     SUMMARY OF OTHER RIGHTS AND APPENDICES

1.    The subject land is based on negotiated price (discounted land price) and
      is for industrial use based 1n the land price of RMB4,210,224.00;

2.    The plot ratio of the total allowable construction area of the subject
      land is 37,600 square meters of which the factory premises is 24,608
      square meters, office building is 7,698 square meters, staff quarters is
      3,894 square meters and other ancillary facilities is 1,400 square meters.
<PAGE>


                                 POINTS TO NOTE

(1)     The land use right and buildings together with all attachments on the
        land registered under this "Real Property Certificate" take effect upon
        the affixing of the chop of the Shenzhen municipal government and is
        entitled to protection under the laws of PRC and shall not be infringed
        by any other parties.

(2)     The real property rights land owner shall comply with the laws,
        regulations of PRC and relevant real property administration authority.

(3)     Any transfer, change or mortgage of real property rights shall be
        subject to the relevant procedures and shall be registered.

(4)     This certificate shall not be amended. Any alteration without
        authorization made will be ineffective and will be pursued against the
        relevant person.

                    Issued by the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government Office
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
33-33963 of Andover Togs, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to 250,000 shares of $.10
par value Common Stock issuable under the Incentive Stock Option Plan and
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, of our report dated February 9, 1995 (March 29,
1996 as to Note 5(a), May 3, 1996 as to Note 4, December 19, 1996 as to Note
5(c), February 4, 1997 as to Note 5(b) and May 12, 1997 as to Note 13) appearing
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Andover Togs, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the year ended November 30, 1995, and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of such Registration Statement.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
August 15, 1997

<PAGE>
98-1096.

#### State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene.

Cuyahoga App. No. 74330. On request for oral argument and motion to expedite oral argument and decision on the merits. Request and motion denied.

Douglas, J., dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2119 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2119

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the opportunity for 
  veterans to use video conferencing for hearings before the Board of 
                           Veterans' Appeals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2013

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the opportunity for 
  veterans to use video conferencing for hearings before the Board of 
                           Veterans' Appeals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Access to Speedy Review 
Act''.

SEC. 2. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS VIDEO HEARINGS.

    Section 7107 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (d), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
        follows:
    ``(1)(A) Upon request for a hearing, the Board shall determine, for 
purposes of scheduling the hearing for the earliest possible date, 
whether a hearing before the Board will be held at its principal 
location or at a facility of the Department or other appropriate 
Federal facility located within the area served by a regional office of 
the Department. The Board shall also determine whether to provide a 
hearing through the use of the facilities and equipment described in 
subsection (e)(1) or by the appellant personally appearing before a 
Board member or panel.
    ``(B) The Board shall notify the appellant of the determinations of 
the location and type of hearing made under subparagraph (A). Upon 
notification, the appellant may request a different location or type of 
hearing as described in such subparagraph. If so requested, the Board 
may grant such request and, in doing so, shall ensure that the hearing 
is scheduled at the earliest possible date without any undue delay or 
other prejudice to the appellant.''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(2), by striking the last sentence.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.21 Ex parte communications. ( a ) *ALJ; Judicial Officer.* At no time prior to the issuance of the final decision shall the ALJ or Judicial Officer discuss ex parte the merits of the appeal or review with any person who is connected with the appeal or review in an advocative or in an investigative capacity, or with any representative of such person. However, procedural matters shall not be included within this limitation; and furthermore, the ALJ or Judicial Officer may discuss the merits of the case with such a person if all parties to the appeal or review, or their attorneys have been given notice and an opportunity to participate. A memorandum of such discussion shall be included in the record.
( b ) *Parties; interested persons.* No party or other interested person shall make or knowingly cause to be made to the ALJ or Judicial Officer an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the appeal or review.
( c ) *Procedure.* If the ALJ or Judicial Officer receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, the one who receives the communication shall place in the public record of the appeal or review: ( 1 ) All such written communications;
( 2 ) Memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and
( 3 ) Copies of all written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses thereto.
( 4 ) Upon receipt of a communication knowingly made or knowingly caused to be made by a party in violation of this section, the ALJ or Judicial Officer may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statute, require the party to show cause why its claim or interest in the appeal or review should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded or otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation.
( d ) *Decision.* To the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statute, a violation of this section shall be sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to the party who knowingly commits a violation of this section or who knowingly causes such a violation to occur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793631
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XV LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         609,623
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               646,035
<PP&E>                                       6,085,649
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,278,079)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,453,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,127,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,453,605
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               702,350
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  306,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                411,541
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            411,541
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   411,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    55.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    55.24
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.415 Grant approval and other approving authorities. ( a ) The State Director is authorized to approve or disapprove TA grants under this subpart. For a grant in excess of $300,000, or in the case of a grant amendment when the amount of the grant plus any unexpended funds from a previous grant will exceed $400,000, prior written consent of the National Office is required. In such cases, the docket, along with the State Director's recommendations, must be submitted to the National Office for review.
( b ) The State Director may approve a grant not to exceed $10,000 to an eligible organization under § 1944.410(d) of this subpart. The grant must be limited to 6 months and funds must be used for the development of the final application, family recruitment, and related activities as explained in § 1944.410(e) of this subpart. The amount of this grant will not be included in figuring TA cost per units.
( c ) The authority to contract for services is limited to the Administrator of Rural Development.
( d ) Monthly expenditures of the grantee will normally be approved by the District Director unless: ( 1 ) The grantee operates in only one county, in which case the authority may be delegated to the County Supervisor.
( 2 ) The grantee operates in more than one Rural Development District, in which case the State Director will designate the approving official.
( 3 ) The grantee operates in more than one State Director's jurisdiction, in which case the Administrator will designate the approving official.
( 4 ) The expenditure is under contract authority, in which case the Contracting Official Representative will approve the monthly expenditure.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00059-MP-AK

JEROME WAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Motion to Reopen Time to File Appeal by Jerome

Wayne Johnson, Doc. 228. Mr. Johnson swears that the first notice he received that his Motion

to Vacate had been denied arrived on December 10, 2009. On December 21, 2009, he filed a

motion to re-open his time to file an appeal of that denial. Upon consideration, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion to Reopen Time to File Appeal, Doc. 228, is GRANTED. 

2. The Judgment on Motion to Vacate, Doc. 224, is WITHDRAWN. 

3. Mr. Johnson shall have until April 2, 2010 to appeal the order denying his motion

to vacate, Doc. 223. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
EXHIBIT 23-1




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS








ASA International Ltd.
Framingham, Massachusetts



    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 33-312933 of ASA International Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements of ASA
International Ltd. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee, L.L.P.


Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee, L.L.P.


Providence, Rhode Island
March 28, 2002
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 279
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 279 appear at 68 FR 41052, July 10, 2003.

§ 279.8 Implementation of amendments relating to administrative and judicial review. ( a ) *Amendment No. 257.* The program change to § 279.3(a)(4) shall be effective September 14, 1984.
( b ) *Amendment No. 274.* The program change of *Amendment No. 274* at § 279.10(d) is effective retroactively to December 23, 1985.
( c ) *Amendment No. 334.* The program changes made to part 279 by this amendment are effective February 1, 1992.
[Amdt. 257, 49 FR 32539, Aug. 15, 1984; Amdt. 262, 49 FR 50598, Dec. 31, 1984, as amended by Amdt. 274, 51 FR 18752, May 21, 1986; Amdt. 334, 57 FR 3913, Feb. 3, 1992. Redesignated at 68 FR 41053, July 10, 2003]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                   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 Annual  Report of Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe,
Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive 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), as applicable, 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
     operations of the Company.


/s/ Robert L. Saxe
Robert L. Saxe
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2004
628 S.E.2d 887

#### In the Matter of Barry T. WIMBERLY, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 27, 2006.

ORDER

On December 1, 2003, petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for twelve (12) months. *In the Matter of*
      *178
      *Wimberly,*356 S.C. 436, 590 S.E.2d 335 (2003). Petitioner has filed a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

Petitioner’s Petition for Reinstatement is hereby granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT