alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Investors Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, 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 establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 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.
 Date:  May 9, 2008
    /s/ Kevin CummingsKevin CummingsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 34
### Adams. Kevin (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Attachments: Adams, Kevin (OST) Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:09 PM 'Alaska DOT, Steven D. Hatter ';Alaska DOT, Richard Sewell Devany, Dennis (OST);Island Air, Bob Stanford (Stanford@Alaska.com) Kodiak Request for Comments Proposal of Island Air at Kodiak.pdf 

### Contacts: Steven Hatter -Alaska DOT

Mr. Steven D. Hatter Deputy Commissioner, Aviation 4111 Aviation Avenue POBox 196900 Anchorage, AK99519-6900 Dear Mr. Hatter, Attached above isacopy of the one timely-filed proposal for Essential Air Service (EAS)at the 11 Kodiak and Afognak water points, submitted bythe incumbent, Island Air Service. We are currently reviewing that proposal. The attached proposal isdirectly from the carrier and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may accessthrough Regulations.gov at DOT-OST-2000-6945, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding. The next step in the carrier-selection process isfor the submission of community comments, acritically important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Inthis instance, the communities are particularly small, and so we askthe State to do all it can to either encourage the communities themselves to respond or to represent them as best as it isable. Island Air's proposal was submitted on August 8, the due date, but as Iwas on vacation. Accordingly, Iam asking that parties get backto us by September 3, preferably by email,. We will docket this email, aswell asany replies. In brief, look at the proposal, and ifyou have any questions, call me, and get backto us bythe deadline, September 3. Best,

Kevin Adams 202-366-

1
#### FREY, Appellant, v. FOUGERA et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Rose Frey against Francine Fougera and Renée G. Fougera, as administratrixes of Cecil Leonide Fougera, deceased.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 503.8 Intoxicating beverages and narcotics.

Entering the PIADC or operating a motor vehicle thereon by a person under the influence of intoxicating beverages or narcotic drugs, or the consumption of such beverages or the use of such drugs in or on the PIADC, is prohibited.
#### In the Matter of Rose Wachsman, Respondent, v. Matthew Wachsman, Appellant.

Order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1966, reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to said court for a hearing and determination *de novo*in accordance with the memorandum herewith. The semi-monthly award in this case was made *954after the trial court had refused to permit inquiry into petitioner’s (the wife’s) financial assets and without *“*due regard to the circumstances of the *respective*parties” (Family Court Act, § 412 [emphasis added]). In any event, the award appears to he excessive in the present posture of the evidence and we prefer that the parties themselves have the opportunity of settling their difficulties or as an alternative that the Family Court hold a new hearing and make a new determination based on the evidence adduced thereat. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
Case 4:96-cv-00420-SPM Document 850 Filed 06/16/00 Page 1 of 1
#### § 501.4 Conformity with signs and emergency directions.

Persons in and on property of the Research Center shall comply with official signs of a prohibitory or directory nature, and with the directions of authorized individuals.
(May 12, 1969)

#### In the Matter of Andrew Klein, an Attorney, Respondent. Harold M. Spitzer, Petitioner.

Motion by respondent to change the date of commencement of his one-year suspension from the practice of law. The order of this court dated April 28, 1969 fixed the date as May 15, 1969. Motion granted to the extent of changing the date of commencement of respondent’s one-year suspension to September 1, 1969. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
First Department,

March, 1967

(March. 1, 1967)

#### Robert B. Blaikie, Individually and on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Consumers of Milk in the City of New York, Respondent, v. Borden Co. et al., Defendants, and Dairymen’s League Co-operative Association, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on December 3, 1965, denying motion to dismiss complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion granted, with permission to plaintiff to move at Special Term for leave to replead his individual cause of action. Appeal from order entered on March 24,1966, denying reargument dismissed. The complaint in this action for damages and injunction, brought by plaintiff “ individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers of milk in the City of New York,” charges an unlawful conspiracy by appellant and other milk *805companies pursuant to which the price of milk to consumers in New York City was fixed by wrongful means at a specified minimum price. Authorities such as *Society Milion Athena*v. *National Bank of Greece*(281 N. Y. 282, 292), *Gaynor*v. *Rockefeller*(15 N Y 2d 120, 129), and *Onofrio*v. *Playboy Club of N. Y.*(20 A D 2d 3, revd. on dissenting opinion, 15 N Y 2d 740) indicate that on this record a class action is not maintainable. The basis of plaintiff’s individual cause is not clearly alleged, and it is observed that the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion do not include one by himself. Settle order on notice. Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Rabin and Bastow, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:03cr39-RH/WCS

STEPHEN PAUL BROWN,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER FOR FORWARDING OF LETTER

A nonparty, Sissy Brown, has written an undated letter to the court

requesting a reduction of defendant’s sentence. The letter has not properly been

filed or served and sets forth no basis for relief. The letter does, however, set forth

information that may appropriately be considered by the attorney for the

government in deciding whether to move for a reduction of defendant’s sentence. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk shall not file the undated letter but shall instead forward it to the

attorney for the government for its consideration and for such action, if any, as the

government may deem appropriate. No recommendation is made by the court on

Case 5:03-cr-00039-RS Document 29 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03cr39-RH/WCS

whether action should or should not be taken. The clerk shall provide copies of

this order to defendant, to the attorney for the government, and to Sissy Brown. 

No further submissions shall be made on defendant’s behalf except (a) by

defendant or an attorney authorized to represent defendant in this court and (b) in

form complying with this court’s Local Rule 5.1.

SO ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 5:03-cr-00039-RS Document 29 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00417- CV

Michael T. P aul, App ellant

v. Texas Disbu rsem ent Unit, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F CO MAL CO UNTY NO. 201 5CVA0207 , H ONO RAB LE RANDAL C. GRAY, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Michae l T. Paul filed suit ag ainst appel l ee Texas Disbursement Unit, seeking to rec over funds g arnished from his social s ecur ity benef its for unpaid child support. He filed an aff

idavit of indige nce, and on J une 15, 2015, the trial court cler k’s office sent him notice that the “Or der on y our Affida vit of I ndige ncy was denied by the J udg e,” telling him that to proce ed, he would have to pay fil i n g fe es and citation and service fee s. On J une 21, Paul filed a notice of 1 nonsuit, stating he intended to ref ile in fede ral court. On J une 29, the trial court signe d an Orde r of Non-Suit, stating that Paul’s claims wer e dismiss ed without prejudice
. On J uly 1, Paul filed a notice of appe al. On Au gu s t 4 , we sent Paul a letter explaining that his notice of nonsuit vitiated the trial court’s prec eding interlocutory order s, including any order s relat ed t o h is asser tion of

The c lerk’s r ecor d does not contain a ny order s relate d to Paul’s assertion of indig ence . 1indige nce, and asking him to explain what he soug ht to appea l so that we could deter mine whether
we could proper ly exercise jurisdiction over his complaints. See H yundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado , 892 S.W .2d 853, 854-55 (Tex. 1995) (plaintiff may nonsuit up until all evidenc e other than rebuttal evidenc e is introduced, and nonsuit “may have the eff ect of v i t i at i ng ear lier interlocutory
o rder s”; decisions on merits, such as summary judgme nt, are not vitiated); Legere v. Leger e , No. 03-12-00046- CV, 2013 WL 692450, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 22, 2013, no pe t.) (mem. op.) (nonsuit terminated tr ial court’s te mporary order s). To date, Paul has n o t responde d to our communication. We there fore dismiss the suit for want of pr osecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Aug ust 27, 2015

2
#### § 372.3 Information and assistance.

Information, including the status of studies, and the availability of reference materials, as well as the informal interpretations of APHIS' NEPA procedures and other forms of assistance, will be made available upon request to the APHIS NEPA contact at: Policy and Program Development, APHIS, USDA, Attention: NEPA Contact, 4700 River Road Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, (301) 851-3043.

[83 FR 24010, May 24, 2018]
**REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT**

This REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “***Agreement***”), dated as of August 18, 2008, is by and between Boeing Satellite Systems Inc., a Delaware corporation (“***Boeing***”), and SkyTerra Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“***SkyTerra***”).  Certain capitalized terms used herein are defined in Section 6 below.  

**RECITALS:**

WHEREAS, pursuant to Amendment No. 3 to Contract #MSV-ATC-01, dated as of January 9, 2006, between Boeing and SkyTerra, as amended through the date hereof (the “***Amendment***”), SkyTerra will issue a warrant (the “***Warrant***”) to Boeing to purchase up to 626,002 shares (the “***Warrant Shares***”) of its voting common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “***Voting Common Stock**”)*, subject to certain antidilution adjustments, on August 18, 2008; and

WHEREAS, in order to induce Boeing to enter into the Amendment, SkyTerra has agreed to provide certain registration rights to Boeing on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements, representations, warranties and covenants herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 

|   | **Section 1.** | **REGISTRATION UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT.** |
|--------|----------------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | **1.1** | Registration. |
|--------|---------|---------------|

 (a)    SkyTerra shall use its reasonable best efforts to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “***SEC***”) no later than October 17, 2008 (the “***Filing Date***”), a registration statement covering the resale of the Registrable Securities held by Holders for offerings to be made on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 of the Securities Act (together with any amendments thereto, and including any documents incorporated by reference therein, the “***Shelf Registration Statement***”) for the purpose of registering such Registrable Securities under the Securities Act for resale by Holders.  The Shelf Registration Statement shall state that, in accordance with Rule 416under the Securities Act, it also covers such indeterminate number of additional Warrant Shares as may become issuable upon exercise of the Warrant to prevent dilution resulting from stock splits, stock dividends, or similar transactions.  SkyTerra will cause the Shelf Registration Statement to comply with the applicable provisions of the Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and set forth a plan of distribution that is reasonably acceptable to Boeing (but does not need to include an underwritten offering).  SkyTerra shall use its reasonable best efforts to have the Shelf Registration Statement declared effective by the SEC under the Securities Act, as soon as reasonably possible following the filing of the Shelf Registration Statement. 

1

 

 

----
Order entered July 27, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01321-CV

MARK RINES, Appellant

V.

CITY OF CARROLLTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-07615

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 25, 2017 motion for extension of time to file a reply 

brief. In his motion, appellant also asks this Court to reconsider its July 17, 2017 order denying 

his request to enlarge the word limit. We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that we 

ORDER appellant’s reply brief filed no later than July 31, 2017. Appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of our previous order is DENIED.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  538,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,753
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 530,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        303,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   530,231
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,198
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,713
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# 22.1103 Policy, procedures, and solicitation provision.

All *professional employees**shall* be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the *contracting officer**shall* insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for *Professional Employees*, in *solicitations* for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed  					$750,000 				 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of *professional employees*. This provision requires that *offerors* submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for *professional employees* working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low *professional employee* compensation *may* be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 22.11 - Professional Employee Compensation
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: David MollllC, Docket No. FAA-2015-5947 Dear Sirs: r

March 4, 2016

In response toyourdenial of myapplication fora drone exemption because I did not appropriately address the reason(s) whygranting the request would be in the public interest, please allow me tothen take a different approach than my initial application did. In 1972, I earned myCommercial Pilot's license. This gave me the privilege ofearning a living as a pilot in the field ofaviation. While this is a personal benefit, it also directly benefits the public interest in the following manor. • In these 44years I've held a Commercial Certificate, and subsequently an ATP Certificate, combined with over 11,000flight hours I've never had one FAA violation. Plus as a CFI, CFII and MEl, I am fully aware on howtoteach flight operations in a mannerconsistent with the FAR's. • Having Commercial pilots who have a long history offollowing the rules flying drones is afar better public benefitthan non-pilots who constantly make the evening news demonstrating actions detrimentalto aviation as awhole, and in many cases detrimental to common sense safety. The SUAS industry has a serious credibility at thistime because ofthis. • I believe a long history ofsafetygoes far above the spirit of public benefit. In a non-professional pilot level, additional public benefits are as follows: • By granting an exemption the FAA will fulfill Congress's intent ofallowing SUAS to operate with significant safety precautions in low risk environments. • The use ofSUAS can significantly reduce the risk to workers offalls while inspecting, surveying, or monitoringvarious projects. Falls are a leading source ofworkplace fatalities• SUAS can inspect, photograph, collect data and reveal hidden flaws on hard to get to areas relating to construction, real estate, agriculture and many otherfacets oftoday's economy. • SUAS reduce the environmental impact by dramatically decreasingthe energy used for data collection. • SUAS use rechargeable lithium ion batteries, as opposed tofossil fuel I hope you reconsider my exemption application. Lastly, I need to correct one minorerror. The name ofthe LLC is: David L. Moll LLC

David Moll 

### Member David L. 

### Moll LLC P.O. Box 96 Greenwood, NE 68366
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv211-MW/GRJ

DONALD J. TRUMP,

ACTING AS PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Omnibus 

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00211-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00211-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2