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



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zap.Com Corporation;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(s) 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:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Avram A. GlazerAvram A. GlazerPresident and CEO
 15
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14 or 15d-14 OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHAGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zap.Com Corporation;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(s) 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:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Leonard DiSalvo
Leonard DiSalvoVice President  Finance and CFO
No. 11-5582.

#### Rosa *v.*Martinez, Secretary, New Mexico Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Hillsborough,

No. 4414.

#### Ernest J. Cloutier, d/b/a Federal Home Insulators. *v.*Henry J. Charland *& a.*

Argued December 6, 1955.

Decided December 31, 1955.

*64*Albert J. Lemieux*and *Osgood & Osgood (Mr. Clinton S. Osgood*orally), for the plaintiff.

*McCabe & Fisher*and *Harold D. Moran (Mr. Moran*orally), for the defendants.

Blandin, J.

The first question which we shall consider is whether the Trial Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for a mistrial because the plaintiff and his counsel rode to the view on the bus with the jury. The answer depends on whether it “conclusively appears” that the trial was thereby rendered unfair. *Beckley*v. *Alexander,*77 N. H. 255, 256. There is no claim nor any indication in the reserved case that the plaintiff or his attorneys did any intentional wrong or that they made any remarks which were likely to be heard by the jury or that they so conducted themselves, aside from the mere fact of their being there, as to prejudice the jury. The Trial Court by its denial of the motion for a mistrial has found in effect that the defendants had a fair trial *(State*v. *Ellard,*95 N. H. 217, 223), and this finding is entitled to great weight. *McLaughlin*v. *Union-Leader,*99 N. H. 492, 499. While the practice of counsel or parties riding to views or otherwise intermingling with jurors should be discouraged, since it may lead to misunderstandings and extended litigation as in this case, yet it is clear that the Court was not compelled to find here that such conduct influenced the verdict, and the defendants’ exception is overruled. *McLaughlin*v. *Union-Leader, supra.*

The defendants also assign as error the refusal of the Trial Court to grant a recess so they might obtain expert testimony. It is axiomatic that all such matters regulating the conduct of a trial rest within the discretion of the Presiding Justice. *LaCoss*v. *Lebanon,*78 N. H. 413, 417. In all the circumstances, including the fact that no sufficient reason appears why defendants’ counsel did not have the expert present at the trial (see *Redlon*v. *Corporation,*90 N. H. 519, 529, 530), we find no abuse of discretion and the defendants’ contention must be rejected.

Finally, the defendants claim that the admission of certain alleged expert testimony in the plaintiff’s behalf was improper, presents no substantial question. The admissibility of such evidence rests within the sound discretion of the Trial Court. *Dowling*v. *Shattuck,*91 N. H. 234. The record shows that the witness had extensive experience with the sort of construction *65involved here. The Court might well conclude that his opinion based on that experience would be of benefit to the jury. No abuse of discretion appears.

No other exceptions having been briefed or argued, the order is

*Judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.
No. 11-958.

#### Kerestes, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. *v.*Pabon.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pau-peris*granted. Certiorari denied.
#### § 54.523 Payment for the non-discount portion of supported services.

An eligible school, library, or consortium must pay the non-discount portion of services or products purchased with universal service discounts. An eligible school, library, or consortium may not receive rebates for services or products purchased with universal service discounts. For the purpose of this rule, the provision, by the provider of a supported service, of free services or products unrelated to the supported service or product constitutes a rebate of the non-discount portion of the supported services.

[69 FR 6192, Feb. 10, 2004]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       6,257,786
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,687,373
<PP&E>                                         563,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,920
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,204,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          422,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,781,473)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,204,353
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          193,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,989,509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,088,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,088,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,088,849)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)






</TABLE>
# Professor Dave Di Tallo speaks on Federal News Radio about Cyber Intelligence

/ Published March 27, 2015

iCollege Professor, CDR Dave Di Tallo recently recorded an interview for Federal News Radio (FNR) on the topic of Cyber Intelligence.  The interview has been taped, so please feel free to listen on the FNR website at:  http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=1269&sid=3826926 .     

In the interview, CDR Di Tallo speaks about the new iCollege Cyber Intelligence course, what cyber intel is all about, and who should consider taking the course.   You can reach him at david.ditallo@ndu.edu .  Courses are offered several times per year, so please check the Academics part of our website for various course offerings and their eResident (on campus) and Distributed Learning (online) class dates.  For any admission questions, please contact the iCollege Office of Student Services at either 202-685-6300 or iCollegeOSS@ndu.edu.   Thank you!
No. 11-1212.

#### Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc., et al. *v.*Streck, Inc. (two judgments).

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari *1011denied.
093A15

#### Town of Boone v. State of North Carolina and County of Watauga

Pit’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal

Special Order
No. 11-5500.

#### Stebbins *v.*Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered September 1 0 , 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00160

- CV

SKY INTERESTS CORP., Appellant

V.

ELLE MOISDON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 382nd Ju dicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 16

- 0782



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s September 7, 2018 second motion for extension of time to

file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to September 21, 2018

.

/s / ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.14 Service or program tests. ( a ) Upon completion of construction of a radio station in accordance with the terms of the construction permit, the technical provisions of the application therefor, technical requirements of this chapter, and applicable engineering standards, and when an application for station license has been filed showing the station to be in satisfactory operating condition, the permittee or any class of station listed in this part may, without further authority of the Commission, conduct service or program tests.
( b ) Program test authority for stations authorized under this part will continue valid during Commission consideration of the application for license and during this period further extension of the construction permit is not required. Program test authority shall be automatically terminated with final action on the application for station license.
( c ) The authorization for tests embodied in this section shall not be construed as approval by the Commission of the application for station license.
[38 FR 18378, July 10, 1973]
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 of Zap.Com Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Avram A. Glazer, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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.

/s/ Avram A. Glazer
Avram A. Glazer
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 2, 2003

This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

17
**Exhibit
      99.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecuity, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Shane Smith, CEO and
      Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:




(1)    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






/s/    M. SHANE
      SMITH




M.
      Shane
      Smith


CEO
      and
      Chairman of the board


March
      24,
      2006
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |              |  |     |  |                                                          
|----- |  | ------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 15, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven                                   
|      |  |              |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0672 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 261

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES NO Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-375-012]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 29, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 23, 2000, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. 
(WIC) tendered for filing as part if its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 2, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the 
filing, to become effective on the dates indicated on each sheet.
    WIC asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's order issued October 13, 1999 in Docket No. RP97-375.
    Specifically, this filing documents transportation rates for the 
periods December 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999 and incorporates 
changes made pursuant to the Commission's order to WIC's interest 
tracker, Columbia Exit Fee and negotiated rate and interruptible 
service revenue crediting provisions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary,
[FR Doc. 00-16996 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

WILLIAM WHITFIELD GARDNER, ANISH 

SHAH, RASESH SHAH, PRAVIN SHAH, 

VEENA SHAH, AND WARREN YU ON 

BEHALF OF VASCULAR ACCESS 

CENTERS, L.P.,

Respondents

v.

VASCULAR ACCESS CENTERS, LLC 

AND JAMES F. MCGUCKIN, M.D.,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 402 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. Respondents’ Application to Expedite Consideration is DISMISSED AS 

MOOT.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARNOLD D. LACOUR AND 

KIMBERLY PETTIT,

Appellants, 

v.

ANAHI PINEDA AND SERGIO LEYVA,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00078-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 10

of Bexar County, Texas1

(TC# 2021CV00084)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellants have not filed a brief or a motion for 

extension of time, we dismiss the appeal.

On May 27, 2021, the Clerk of the Court sent the parties a notice that Appellants had not 

filed a brief or motion for extension of time. Further, the notice advised the parties of the Court’s 

intent to dismiss for want of prosecution unless a party responded showing grounds to continue 

the appeal. No response has been received as of this date.

1 We hear this case on transfer from Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3.
2

This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the 

appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed and gives no reasonable explanation for 

such failure. TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). Because Appellants failed to file a brief and have not 

responded to our inquiries,2 we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to 

TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), and 42.3(c).

June 29, 2021

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

2 Appellees also filed a motion to dismiss contending that the appeal was moot because no supersedeas bond was filed 

and the judgment had already been executed. We asked Appellants for a response to this motion. Appellants did not 

respond to this request, either. Because we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution, we overrule Appellees’ motion 

to dismiss as moot.