alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31(a)**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**
I, Gregory B. Kalush, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation(the “Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andwe have:    (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;    (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and    (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting;and  5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Boardof Directors:    (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and    (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: August 13, 2004 Signature: /s/ Gregory B. Kalush      Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.62 Component parts; minimum requirements. ( a ) The component parts of each respirator shall be: ( 1 ) Designed, constructed, and fitted to insure against creation of any hazard to the wearer;
( 2 ) Assembled to permit easy access for inspection and repair of functional parts; and
( 3 ) Assembled to permit easy access to parts which require periodic cleaning and disinfecting.
( b ) Replacement parts shall be designed and constructed to permit easy installation and to maintain the effectiveness of the respirator.
§ 54a.10 Fiscal accountability. ( a ) Religious organizations that receive applicable program funds for substance abuse services are subject to the same regulations as other nongovernmental organizations to account, in accordance with generally accepted auditing and accounting principles, for the use of such funds.
( b ) Religious organizations shall segregate Federal funds they receive under applicable programs into a separate account from non-Federal funds. Only the Federal funds shall be subject to audit by the government under the SAMHSA program.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.67 Suspension of action by the Patent and Trademark Office.

Action by the Office may be suspended for a reasonable time for good and sufficient cause. The fact that a proceeding is pending before the Office or a court that is relevant to the issue of initial or continued registrability of a mark and that proceeding has not been finally determined, or the fact that the basis for registration is, under the provisions of section 44(e) of the Act, registration of the mark in a foreign country and the foreign application is still pending, will be considered prima facie good and sufficient cause. An Office or court proceeding is not considered finally determined until an order or ruling that ends the proceeding or litigation has been rendered and noticed, and the time for any appeal or other further review has expired with no further review sought. An applicant's request for a suspension of action under this section, filed within the response period set forth in § 2.62(a), may be considered responsive to the previous Office action. The Office may require the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding to provide status updates and information relevant to the ground(s) for suspension, upon request.

[86 FR 64327, Nov. 17, 2021]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7055** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RICKY LEE COPELAND , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00035

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : January 13, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ricky Lee Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Copeland appeals the dist rict court ’ s order denying his motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, renewed motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012)
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Copeland , No. 3:10

- cr - 00035

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2013); see also United States v. Black , 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not provide means to apply Fair
S entencing Act (“FSA”) minimums to defendants sentenced before FSA’s effective date ); United States v. Blewett , __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 6231727 , at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc) (Nos. 12

- 5226, 12

- 5582) (vacating panel opinion and hold ing that “(1) the Fa ir Sentencing Act’s new mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before it took effect; (2) § 3582(c)(2) does not provide a vehicle for circumventing that interpretation; and (3) the Constitution does not provide a basis for blocking it”)
. We further deny Copeland’s request for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2078 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14536 State Route 136 in Cherry Fork, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Omer ‘O.T.’ Hawkins Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2078 EH

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT OMER T. ‘‘O.T.’’ HAWKINS 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 14536 State Route 136 in Cher5 ry Fork, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Staff Sergeant Omer T. ‘O.T.’ Hawkins Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Omer 

11 T. ‘O.T.’ Hawkins Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2078 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Post-

‘O.T.’ Hawkins Post Office’’. Cherry Fork, Ohio, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Omer al Service located at 14536 State Route 136 in
#### § 203.2 Authority and functions.

The administration of the copyright law was entrusted to the Library of Congress by an act of Congress in 1870, and the Copyright Office has been a separate department of the Library since 1897. The statutory functions of the Copyright Office are contained in and carried out in accordance with the Copyright Act.

[82 FR 9362, Feb. 6, 2017]
#### § 351.6 Discovery in distribution proceedings.

In distribution proceedings, the Copyright Royalty Judges shall designate a 45-day period beginning with the filing of written direct statements within which parties may request of an opposing party nonprivileged underlying documents related to the written exhibits and testimony. However, all parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery on amended statements.

[71 FR 53328, Sept. 11, 2006]
§ 52i.11 What shall a grantee record and report? A grantee awarded funds under this part shall: ( a ) Maintain appropriate records in compliance with this part and other requirements as referenced in terms of the award, including documentation of: ( 1 ) The type and amount of investments of the endowment fund;
( 2 ) The amount of endowment fund income and corpus;
( 3 ) The amount and purpose of expenditures of endowment fund income; and
( 4 ) The expenses and charges associated with the management of the endowment funds if such expenses and charges were paid from endowment fund income.
( b ) Retain records in accordance with 45 CFR 75.361. The endowment fund corpus, fund income, and fund expenditures must be reported over a 20-year period, and supporting records are to be retained for 3 years after the submission of the final report to the NIMHD;
( c ) Permit authorized officials the authority to conduct a review, as set forth in 45 CFR 75.364 (which states that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarding agencies, the HHS Inspector General, the U.S. Comptroller General, and any of their duly authorized representatives “have the right of timely and unrestricted access to any books, documents, papers, or other records of recipients that are pertinent to the awards, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, transcripts, or copies of such documents”); and
( d ) Submit Financial Status Reports, as set forth in 45 CFR 75.341, as required by the NIMHD and in the form prescribed. A final Financial Status Report shall be required 20 years after the end of the project period.
[80 FR 53744, Sept. 8, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 72908, Nov. 16, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6288

LAMONT DELMAR PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF JAMES KNIGHT; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR G. BULLOCK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03095-D)

Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Delmar Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Baxter Bradburn, 

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Delmar Parker appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v. Knight, No. 

5:10-ct-03095-D (E.D.N.C. May 6, 2011). 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
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.406 Service of petition.

In addition to the requirements of § 42.6, the petitioner must serve the petition and exhibits relied upon in the petition as follows:

(a) The petition and supporting evidence must be served on the respondent at the correspondence address of record for the earlier application or subject patent. The petitioner may additionally serve the petition and supporting evidence on the respondent at any other address known to the petitioner as likely to effect service.

(b) Upon agreement of the parties, service may be made electronically. Service may be by Priority Mail Express® or by means at least as fast and reliable as Priority Mail Express®. Personal service is not required.

[77 FR 48669, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended at 79 FR 63043, Oct. 22, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JESSIE TRAMONT GILMORE, a/k/a J-Pooh, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:04-cr-00108-WDK-FBS-1; 4:06-cv-00039-WDK-FBS) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jessie Tramont Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jessie Tramont Gilmore seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilmore has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 19, 2020 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2020-3 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

                            OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                            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 Transition Report of OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
Goddard, Ph.D., 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: February 9, 2005                 /s/ Colin Goddard,Ph.D.
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                       Chief Executive Officer

                                       40
DoVosT- ^oi(- ^'3 ^ 

BUTTE-SILVER BOW 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

Courthouse, 155 W. Granite Street, Suite 106 

Butte. Montana 59701-9256 

November 4, 2011 

1 

CO 

i\ 

••.••J 

•--: \ •_..•:. - ' 

r;"i-'-: m —r' i ^ 

"!--' :t^ —; 

SQ:'^ 

P O 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

X-53 Room W86-308 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Please accept this letter as my ofHcial response from the City-County of Butte-Silver Bow to the proposals 

submitted to provide air service to Butte, Montana, under the Essential Air Service program. After reviewing 

the two proposals and consulting with the Airport Management and Airport Authority board members, I offer 

my fijil-support for the proposal submitted by SkyWest Airlines. I base my decision on the following 

reasons: 

1. Our community has had a successful relationship with SkyWest Airlines for the past fourteen 

years. 

2. The SkyWest proposal is for air service to a medium-sized hub, located in Salt Lake City. 

3. The subsidy is lower than the other bid submitted by Gulf Stream. 

Although the bid from Gulf Stream proposes four more flights per week, the number of seats would be 

considerably less. We believe that the reduction of seats, and not going to a medium-sized hub would have a 

significant, negative impact to our economy and continued quality air service. 

It is important for me to stress to you that our airport is a critical part of the economic stability, not only to 

our community, but to all of the communities of southwest Montana whose citizens and businesses utilize 

and rely on the Bert Mooney Airport for their air service. Again, on behalf of all of our citizens, please 

accept this letter as our full-support for the SkyWest Airlines' proposal. 

Thank you for your attention this letter; and, if you have any questions, please contact me at 

406-497-6221. 

Chief Executive for Butte Silver Bow 

cc: Pat Shea, Interim Airport Manager 

Pam Butler, Finance and Business Development Manager 

Airport Authority Board Members 

PHONE: (406) 497-6220 • FAX: (406) 497-6224 • E-MAIL: chiefexec®bsb.mt.gov • www.bsb.mt.gov