alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 29, 2008
    
    /s/ SALLY FRAME KASAKS

Sally Frame KasaksChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                         Three Months         Three Months
                                                             Ended                Ended
                                                         June 30, 1998        June 30, 1997
                                                         -------------        -------------
<S>                                                       <C>                  <C>

Net loss attributable to common shareholders              ($6,924,608)         ($4,027,732)
                                                          ===========          ===========
Calculation of shares outstanding:
     Weighted average common shares
        outstanding used in calculating net
        loss per share                                      21,087,991          20,752,848
                                                          ------------         -----------
        Total                                               21,087,991          20,752,848
                                                          ============         ===========
Basic and diluted loss per common share                         ($0.33)             ($0.19)
                                                          ============         ===========
</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00245-CR

Charles Garza

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-CR-3387-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

Febrauary 7, 2019
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MIGUEL ALMEJO PALOMERA,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-314M 

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

1. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(B), and 846; and 

2. Distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C),

and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Date of Detention Hearing: June 28, 2005.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required and the safety of other persons and the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that no

Case 2:05-cr-00344-JCC Document 13 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

conditions would reasonably assure the presence of defendant at the time of trial. Defendant has

not overcome this presumption.

(2) Defendant is viewed as a risk of nonappearance because he is a citizen of Mexico,

has strong family ties to Mexico, and has traveled frequently to Mexico. 

(3) Defendant is viewed as a risk of danger due to the nature of the instant offense.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is

confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of

an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00344-JCC Document 13 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135915 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135915 

 COA: 281975 

Wayne CC: 03-003196-03

LEO DENNIS GLOVER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IFTH Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan F. McKeage, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Jonathan F. McKeage                                            |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Jonathan F. McKeagePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|   |                                                               |
|   | May 14, 2008                                                       |
From: nurselogic@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:47:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dalila Epperson

San Jose, CA 95123
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER VACATING-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

EXPANSION ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-1619L

 

ORDER VACATING ORDER

REGARDING INITIAL

DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS

REPORT, AND EARLY SETTLEMENT

The Court’s Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement

entered October 3, 2005, is hereby VACATED. The Court will reissue the Order Regarding Initial

Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement after defendants have appeared.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2005.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01619-RSL Document 8 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 1
From: dileedi3@aim.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:38:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Diane DiSalvo

Lakeland, FL 33813
No. 68414.

protests 58/23243, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### John H. Faunce Phila., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oiivee, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monophoto machines or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lanston Industries, Inc.*v. *United States*(49 CCPA 123, C.A.D. 807), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: vonda.burroughs@hunterdouglas.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:56:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Vonda Burroughs

Tupelo, MS 38804
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

H. STANLEY GASS and

UTE LINDSAY GASS,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERT F. SCHLOTFELDT;

CHRISTOPHER E. ROY; and

DUGGAN, SCHLOTFELDT & WELCH

PLLC

Defendants.

.

Case No. C05-5602JKA

ORDER DIRECTING

PLAINTIFFS TO SUBMIT

FURTHER INFORMATION 

On review of the court records, the court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs, Stanley and Ute Gass, have submitted a complaint making allegations against

defendants. The filing fee ($250.00) was not paid. Instead of paying the filing fee, Plaintiff Stanley Gass,

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Mrs. Ute Gass did not submit an application or

financial affidavit to support the application. 

2. The court needs financial information regarding both plaintiffs, which is a marital community,

and the information provided by Mr. Gass is insufficient (for example, he states he is self-employed, but has

received no money in the last 12 months for his work). Accordingly, plaintiffs must submit further

information regarding Mr. Guss’s self-employment and information must be provided regarding Mrs.

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 4 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 1 of 2

Gass et al v. Schlotfeldt et al Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Guss’s income, if any. In addition, the court directs plaintiffs to submit a copy of plaintiffs bank records

and statements for the past six-month period.

3. The court directs plaintiffs to provide the above noted financial information to assist the court

properly consider the request. Plaintiffs shall provide this documentation by not later than October 20,

2005, otherwise the court will recommend dismissal of this matter. 

DATED this 26th day of September, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 4 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 2 of 2
From: Bro. Mario Aquinas Calabrese OP

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:16:36 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Bro. Mario Aquinas Calabrese OP
Washington, District Of Columbia