alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Nancy M. Harvey, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 my supervision, to ensurethat 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report my 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; and 

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

/s/ Nancy M.Harvey                                                                             

Nancy M. Harvey 

*President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer*

August 13, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Adam A. Kablanian, President and Chief Executive Officer of Virage Logic
Corporation, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report of Virage Logic Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004;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 officers 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 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(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):  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 13, 2004 /s/ Adam A. KablanianAdam A. KablanianPresident and Chief Executive Officer
# Tab 1

&"Calibri"&11&K000000 TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#_x000D_		

# Original

&"Calibri"&11&K000000 TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#_x000D_
(Reap. Dec. 10311)

Entry No. 8644.

#### Hurricane Import Co. *v.*United States

(Decided August 7, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement upon stipulation reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after February 27, 1958 and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the amounts marked “X” in red ink by the Examiner.

> 4. That the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

*365On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts marked “X” in red ink by the examiner on the invoice.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      81,230,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               83,175,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   275,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           247,064,000
<PP&E>                                     358,702,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,228,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,861,866,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      224,371,000
<BONDS>                                    815,720,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              354
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     731,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,861,866,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           276,121,000
<CGS>                                      211,129,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              280,543,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,805,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (22,721,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (5,096,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,925,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,625,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WALKER : 02-3868

SIMON : 02-3887

GOTO : 02-3922

JOHNSON, et al. : 02-3932

HOSOKAWA : 02-3959

KILCY : 02-3964

BYRON : 02-4108

ROCHA, et al. : 02-4121

CAVITT : 02-4139

HIBMA-CANARIO, et al. : 02-4152

BAILEY, et al. : 02-4188

BOSSI, et al. : 02-4234

STEINHAUER, et al. : 02-4257

SKEELS, et al. : 02-4274

WALKER, et al. : 02-4279

FRIEDEN, et al. : 02-4310

DIMANLANTA : 02-4313

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04234-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

R. Barclay Surrick

Case 2:02-cv-04234-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,075.

#### SMITH et al. v. The MANSANITO.1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 19, 1861.

Salvage — Sale op Derelict — Right to Freight —Blockade op Port.

[A derelict vessel and cargo were sold under a decree awarding one half to the salvors. The original owners of the vessel purchased her at the sale, which was before the sale of the cargo, and thereupon notified the cargo owners that they held themselves ready to carry the cargo to its destination, on the raising of the blockade which had been declared in the meantime, and claimed a lien for freight. *Held,*that there was lo lien, and that the owners of the cargo were entitled to the entire proceeds thereof after satisfaction of the salvage decree.]

[This was a libel by Jonas Smith and others against the bark Mansanito and cargo, to recover for salvage services. Heard on application for payment of surplus proceeds of cargo to the cargo owners.]

This ease came up on an application to the court for payment of the remnants and proceeds out of the registry. The vessel and her cargo were abandoned at sea on March 28, 1801. brought into this court by salvors *595as derelict, and libeled by them, and the court awarded one-half the proceeds of the vessel and her cargo as salvage. At the time of her abandonment the vessel was carrying a cargo of iron, under a charter to deliver it at City Point in Virginia. The owners of the cargo abandoned the cargo to the underwriters, and appeared in the salvage suit only as respecting them. The vessel arrived in New York April 10th, the decree in the case was rendered June 13th, the vessel was sold June 29th to the original owners, and the cargo was sold July Gth. On July 2d the owners of the vessel gave notice to the owners of the cargo that they held themselves in readiness to forward the cargo to its destination as soon as the blockade of Virginia, established April 30th, was removed, and claimed their right to hold the cargo for that purpose, and suggested that one-half of the cargo should be delivered up to satisfy the salvage decree against it, and that, if the owners of the cargo desired to have the cargo remain here, some settlement be made as to the freight; otherwise, the vessel would claim her lien on the cargo and its proceeds for freight. No such agreement was made, and the cargo was sold, and the proceeds remaining in court, after satisfying the salvage decree, amounted to about $6,200. The owners of the cargo now applied for the payment to them of- all the proceeds so "emain-ing, while the owners of the vessel claimed that the freight should be paid to them out of such proceeds.

Mr. Nash, for the vessel.

Mr. Lord, for the cargo.

1

 [Not previously reported.]

THE COURT

(SHIPMAN, District Judge),

after hearing counsel for the respective claimants, made an order that the proceeds should be paid in full to the owners of the cargo, thus disallowing the claim for freight. Costs to be divided proportionally between vessel and cargo.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE FILEMON HERNANDEZ

- ROJAS ,

Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P . BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent

. No. 1 6

- 70161 Agency No. A077

- 101

- 481

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23 , 201 9 **

Before: CALLAHAN and KLEINFELD , Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , ** * Judge

. Jose Filemon Hernandez

- Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Ho norable Jane A. Restani , Judge for the United States Court of International Trade , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

OCT 29 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We r eview de novo whether a conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Tall v. Mukasey , 517 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. First, we are not persuaded by the Government’s argument that Hernandez

Rojas failed to sufficiently raise his claim before the BIA. Although we may review a final order of removal only if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right , ” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) , the exhaustion doctrine is not employe d in a formalistic manner and it does not demand perfect precision. Figueroa v. Mukasey , 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2008). Whe n , as here, an issue wa s clearly raised before the BIA and the BIA decides the issue, that issue is exhausted, even if the peti tioner makes slightly different or more expansive arguments in support of that issue before this court. See Vizcarra

- Ayala v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 870, 873 (9th Cir. 2008). The BIA did not err in determining that Hernandez

- Rojas’ convictions under California Penal Code § 647(b) are crimes involving moral turpitude, and therefore that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) ( barring certain exceptions, aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude are not eligible for cancellation of removal). We are not persuaded by Hernandez

Rojas’ contention that precedent establishing his convictions are crimes involving3

moral turp itude do not control. See Rohit v. Holder , 670 F.3d 1085 , 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that solicitation of prostitution under California Penal Code §647(b) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude). As a three

-

judge panel, we lack authority to over rule Rohit

. Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .
#### Keller *vs.*Beaty.

Where John Keller bought from Beaty certain land,' and some years thereafter it was agreed by all parties that William Keller might take the place of John, assume the indebtedness of John and become the debtor of Beaty, and William thereupon executed his note to Beaty for the land, it was not a good defence to a suit by Beaty upon the note that, while John Keller was the debtor, Beaty had sold wood from the land to the amount of $350, and had also received cotton therefrom to the value of $100, as payments on this indebtedness, and that the nóte for this reason was usurious. The undertaking by William Keller and the giving of his note therefor was a novation, and the state of the accounts be-" tween John Keller and Beaty at that time, made no difference so far as William was concerned.

May 21, 1888.

*816Promissory notes. Contracts. Novation. Before Judge Boynton. Spalding superior court. August adjourned term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

J. J. Hunt and Hall & Hammond, for plaintiff in error.

F. D. Dismuke and N. M. Oollens, *contra.*

Blandford, Justice.

John Keller bought from Beaty a tract of land in the county of Spalding. Several years thereafter, it was agreed between these parties and William Keller, the brother of John Keller, that the latter should assume the indebtedness and take the place of John Keller as the debtor of Beaty; and William Keller thereupon executed his note to Beaty for this land. Beaty sued William Keller on this note. The latter pleaded that, while John Keller was the debtor, Beaty had sold wood from the land to the amount of $350, and had also received cotton therefrom to the value of $100, as payments on this indebtedness ; and that the note, for this reason, was usurious. Upon demurrer, these pleas were stricken by the court below; and this is the ground of error insisted on here.

We think the court below did right in striking these pleas. The undertaking of this indebtedness by William Keller, and the giving of his note therefor, was a novation; and the state of the accounts between his brother, John Keller, and Beaty, at that time, made no difference so far as he (William Keller) was concerned; he was bound to pay his note, and the condition of affairs between his brother and Beaty could not avail him as a defence to the note.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 65352.

#### Gamble-Vargish & Co., dba Seabury & Co., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/3432, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Fobd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pigtails similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63984, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 964 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 964

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 27, 2018.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. No further 
amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and available pro 
forma amendments described in section 3 of House Resolution 961. Each further 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments described 
in section 3 of House Resolution 961, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
points of order against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from June 29, 2018, 
through July 9, 2018--
            (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be 
        considered as approved; and
            (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at 
        a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of 
        the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the 
        adjournment.
    Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
    Sec. 4.  It shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to 
consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of 
July, 2018.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```