alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Richard R. Woolcott, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Volcom, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (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 (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 10, 2006 /s/ Richard R. Woolcott     Richard R. Woolcott  President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32 

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James E. Keenan, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael Pungello, as Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of the Company. 

 

|                              |                                                       |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                  |
| /s/ James E. Keenan

   |
| Name:                        | James E. Keenan                                       |
| Title:                       | Interim Chief Executive Officer                       |
| Date:                        | July 31, 2019                                         |
|                         |
| /s/ Michael Pungello

  |
| Name:                        | Michael Pungello                                      |
| Title:                       | Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Treasurer |
| Date:                        | July 31, 2019                                         |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ZAMAR SWIFT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 261 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 23, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DEMETRIUS TOMAZ ROGERS, 

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

RAYMOND E. DENECKE, 

Defendant–Appellee.

No. 12-6198

(D.C. No. 5:12-CV-00373-R)

(W.D. Oklahoma)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Demetrius Rogers, a pro se Oklahoma state prisoner, challenges the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner complaint. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged

that Defendant, the assistant public defender who represented him in his state criminal

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
case, deprived him of his right to due process by advising him to accept a plea agreement

rather than proceed to trial because of his race. Plaintiff’s complaint also included a state

malpractice claim. 

The magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Plaintiff’s §

1983 claim because, as set forth in Polk County. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981),

Defendant, as a public defender, was not acting under color of state law when he

represented Plaintiff in the criminal proceeding. The magistrate judge further

recommended that the district court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

state law malpractice claim. After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections, the district court

agreed. It adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed

Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Nothing in Plaintiff’s brief or the appellate record persuades us there was any error

in the magistrate judge’s analysis or the district court’s order. Therefore, for substantially

the same reasons given by the magistrate judge and the district court, we AFFIRM the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is GRANTED. Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to continue making partial

payments until his entire filing fee has been paid in full. 

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Vasquez, Also Known as Charles Mancino, Appellant.

Determination of appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on September 7, 1977, unanimously held in abeyance pending receipt and review of defendant’s *pro se*brief and the return to this court of all materials forwarded to defendant in connection with the preparation of the supplemental brief. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,313
<SECURITIES>                                     3,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,886
<PP&E>                                           5,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,657
<BONDS>                                          1,406
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,387
<SALES>                                          6,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,610
<CGS>                                            3,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    164
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<FN>
<F1>THE RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO REFLECT ANY 
CHANGES DUE TO FAS 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended  June 30, 2008(the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Edward H. Bersoff,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
| Date: August 8, 2008 |       | By:        | /s/ Edward H. Bersoff                     |
|---------------------------|------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                      | ** ** | ** ** | **Edward  H. Bersoff**                    |
|                      | ** ** | ** ** | **Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer** |
|                      | ** ** | ** ** | **(Principal  Executive Officer)**        |

 

----
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr18/MCR

MICHAEL JOE GREEN, II

 /

JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON JURY VERDICT

Based on the jury’s verdict of not guilty as to this defendant on Count One of

the Indictment following a trial on December 1 - 3, 2020, the defendant, MICHAEL

JOE GREEN, II, is hereby ADJUDGED NOT GUILTY of the charge in Count One

and the charge is hereby DISMISSED. The United States Marshal Service is directed

to release defendant from custody immediately upon processing.

SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00018-MCR Document 78 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 15, 2010 

d0708 

Order 

 

July 15, 2010 

140334 

MAHENDRA DALMIA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140334 

 COA: 281706 

Oakland CC: 2003-052350-NH 

CARL PALFFY, M.D. and EMERGENCY 

PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL PONTIAC, 

a/k/a TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 1, 2009 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
#### § 202.4 Status of applicant.

The person filing an application shall not be a party to any proceeding which may be instituted under the Act, unless he be permitted by the Secretary or by the Administrative Law Judge to intervene therein. The Director shall not be required to divulge the name of the applicant and such person will have no legal status in the proceeding which may be instituted, except where allowed to intervene or as such person may be called as a witness. At any time after the institution of the proceeding, and before it has been submitted to the Secretary for final consideration, the Secretary or the Administrator, may upon petition in writing and upon good cause shown, permit any person to intervene.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES DERBY, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

DISPOSAL SERVICES, LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 5:20-cv-00104-TKW-MJF

JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to Rule 16.2(A)(1), Local Rules, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of Florida, the parties hereby notify the Court that this matter has been 

settled, subject to the parties finalizing and signing the agreement and payment of the settlement 

proceeds. 

Respectfully submitted this 3

rd day of November, 2021.

/s/ Paul M. Botros_______

Paul M. Botros, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 088758 

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

600 N. Pine Island Road, Ste. 400

Plantation, Florida 33324

Tel: (954) 318-0268 

Fax: (954) 327-3016

E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff 

/s/ John W. Roberts 

John W. Roberts, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0108570

john@johnwrobertslaw.com

DAVID S. REHR, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 117909

david@johnwrobertslaw.com

DANIEL ROSENHEIM

Florida Bar No. 124829

daniel@johnwrobertslaw.com

12273 US Highway 98, West, Ste. 204

Miramar Beach, Florida 32550

Tel: (850) 250-0887 

Fax: (850) 250-2612

Trial Counsel for Defendants

Case 5:20-cv-00104-TKW-MJF Document 22 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3

rd day of November 2021, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which I understand will send 

a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Paul M. Botros

Paul M. Botros, Esq. 

Case 5:20-cv-00104-TKW-MJF Document 22 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 205.500 Areas and duration of accreditation. ( a ) The Administrator shall accredit a qualified domestic or foreign applicant in the areas of crops, livestock, wild crops, or handling or any combination thereof to certify a domestic or foreign production or handling operation as a certified operation.
( b ) Accreditation shall be for a period of 5 years from the date of approval of accreditation pursuant to § 205.506.
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 3624, Jan. 19, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2251 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2251

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States courthouse and Federal building located 
 at 118 South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ``Edward 
       J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse and Federal building located at 118 
South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse and 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse and Federal 
building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the ``Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2251

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal building located 
 at 118 South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ``Edward 
       J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building''.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.49

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                      FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.

                         SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN

      In accordance with Section 11.1 of the Fisher Scientific International
Inc. Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended
effective December 10, 2002, as follows:

The first sentence of Section 1.20 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated as
follows:

"1.20 "Eligible Employee" means any Employee of a Company other than an Employee
who is: (a) covered by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and the
Company, provided that retirement benefits were the subject of good faith
bargaining; (b) a leased employee within the meaning of section 414(n)(2) of the
Code; or (c) an Employee who is eligible (or would be eligible upon satisfaction
of service and/or age criteria) for another section 401(k) plan maintained by a
Company."

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Fisher Scientific International Inc. Savings and
Profit Sharing Plan is amended this 12th day of December 2002.


                                        ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE

                                        /s/ Paul M. Meister
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Paul M. Meister

                                        /s/ Todd M. DuChene
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Todd M. DuChene
#### § 29.6090 Rule 4.

Standard grades shall be assigned to clean and sound tobacco only.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Stanley J. Pyclik, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: See *People ex rel. Dutcher v New York State Bd. of Parole*(71 AD2d 963, app dsmd 48 NY2d 799) and *People ex rel. Spinks v Dillon*(69 AD2d 368, app dsmd 48 NY2d 1025). Section 259-0 of the Executive Law does not provide for final revocation hearings. Relator was serving a sentence in a foreign State for a crime committed there, and there was no way before the end of that commitment that he could have been returned to New York for a final revocation hearing. Relator was not in a “compact institution” and section 259-n (subd 1, par [d]) of the Executive Law has no application in this situation *(see People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim,*76 AD2d 952). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court— habeas corpus.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### § 29.69 Weighing apparatus.

A scale used for determination of weight to be certificated under the Act shall be subject to examination for accuracy according to the regulations of the State or municipality in which located. No disapproved scale shall be used to determine weight of tobacco for the purposes of the Act and the regulations in this subpart.
#### § 29.2252 Air-dried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco as customarily prepared for storage under natural atmospheric conditions.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6031

DONALD R. DEHANEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM L. SMITH,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-325-DKC)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald R. Dehaney, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Dehaney v. Smith, No. CA-95-325-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1995).

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
#### § 29.2285 Offtype.

Tobacco of distinctly different characteristics which cannot be classified as Fire-cured, U.S. Type 21. (See Rule 22, § 29.2413.)
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00159-CR

Tyson James Nolen

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12626)

December 22, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Anne Gardne r_________

_________ Justice Anne Gardner