alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I, Joseph J. Bouffard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCSB Bankcorp, 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(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:

(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; and

(c) 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(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; and

(b) 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: February 13, 2007



/s/ Joseph J. BouffardJoseph J. BouffardPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
# sec5_balsht_2020

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&10V BS - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000050172
<NAME> INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,540,560
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    722,618
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         273,071
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        31,060
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 400,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,967,798
<COMMON>                                        56,584
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      732,472
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            278,814
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,067,870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           68,445
<PREFERRED>                                      9,435
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,014,237
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              56,410
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  63,190
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   35,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    161,194
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                34,033
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,457,983
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,967,798
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,391,917
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            78,263
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,105,866
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,184,129
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        207,788
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,415
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 212,203
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        65,463
<NET-INCOME>                                   146,740
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      5,736
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  141,004
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       131,260
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       39,678
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         260,211
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 11 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 12 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 13 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 14 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-4 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 16 of 16
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4154 — Degussa/DOW (superabsorbent polymers))

(2006/C 177/17)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
#### Corey WEIDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Oregon Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-35276.

D.C. No. CV 97-01503-JJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Weidner's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Corey Dean Weidner, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition after finding that Weidner had procedurally defaulted on his claim and that the petition was second or successive without authorization from this Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the district court’s January 29, 1999 Order and remand with instructions to dismiss Weidner’s § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

In October 1994, Weidner filed a habeas petition challenging the Oregon Board of Parole’s (“Board”) February 24, 1993 decision. The district court dismissed this petition in May 1996. On October 20, 1997, Weidner filed the habeas *543petition that is the subject of this current appeal, again challenging the Board’s February 24, 1993 decision. He did not, however, move in this Court for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive section 2254 motion as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2000). As a result, the district court was without jurisdiction to review Weidner’s motion on the merits. *Cf. United States v. Allen,*157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that failure to request the requisite authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 petition from the circuit court deprives the district court of jurisdiction).

To the extent that Weidner’s notice of appeal can be construed as a request for authorization to file a second or successive section 2254 motion in the district court, the request is denied. Weidner has not made a prima facie showing necessary to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). *See also Babbitt v. Woodford,*177 F.3d 744 (9th Cir.1999), *petition for cert. filed,*May 4,1999.

VACATED and REMANDED with directions to dismiss.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 01-455-A

)

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI )

a/k/a “Shaqil,” )

a/k/a “Abu Khalid )

al Sahrawi,” )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Former defense counsel have tendered to the Court six

proposed pre-trial motions which they had planned to file on

defendant’s behalf. Because defendant has rejected the

assistance of these attorneys, these motions have neither been

filed with the Court nor sent to counsel for the United States.

To enable defendant to decide whether he wants to use these

motions in whole or in part, it is hereby

ORDERED that a copy of these motions and the transmittal

letter accompanying them be sent to defendant and Alan H.

Yamamoto, Esquire, defendant’s new stand-by counsel. 

In compliance with the Order of June 14, 2002, the United

States has advised us that it does not object to unsealing any of

defendant’s pleadings. His former counsel have noted some

objections. In light of what defendant has already said in open

court and having reviewed these objections, the Court does not

find any legitimate reason for either maintaining these documents
1 As long as defendant is proceeding pro se, his pleadings 

will initially be filed under seal. The United States will have

until 4:00 p.m. the following workday by which to advise the

Court of any objection to unsealing the pleading.

2

under seal or redacting them. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that all of defendant’s pro se pleadings filed to

date, including defendant’s pro se notices of appeal, be and are

UNSEALED.1

The Clerk is directed to unseal these documents and to

forward copies of this Order to defendant, pro se; Mr. Yamamoto;

all former and present counsel of record; the Court Security

Officer; and the United States Marshal.

Entered this 17th day of June, 2002.

/s/

 

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 23, 2016

s0920

Order 

Clerk

September 23, 2016

154229

SC: 154229

In re KOZLOWSKI, Minors. COA: 330044

Livingston CC Family Division:

14-014681-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1567 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disclose certain patient information 

to State controlled substance monitoring programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2017 

Mr. DONNELLY (for himself and Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disclose certain patient information to State controlled substance 

monitoring programs, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘VA Prescription Data 

5 Accountability Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1567 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO DISCLOSE PATIENT 

3 INFORMATION TO STATE CONTROLLED SUB4 STANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 5701(l) of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Under’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘a veteran or the dependent of 

9 a veteran’’ and inserting ‘‘a covered individual’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘covered individual’ 

13 means an individual who is dispensed medication pre14 scribed by an employee of the Department or by a non15 Department provider authorized to prescribe such medica16 tion by the Department.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 194 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 154 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure small businesses affected by 

the onset of transmissible diseases are eligible for disaster relief. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2017 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. NELSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

AUGUST 2, 2017 

Reported by Mr. RISCH, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure small businesses 

affected by the onset of transmissible diseases are eligible 

for disaster relief. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Relief 

5 From Disease Induced Economic Hardship Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 154 RS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(k)(2) of the Small Busi3 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)(2)) is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

5 the end; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (C), striking the period 

7 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(D) communicable diseases for which the Fed10 eral Government issues a travel alert or travel warn11 ing.’’. 

12 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub13 section (a) shall apply to a communicable disease— 

14 (1) for which the Federal Government issues a 

15 travel alert or travel warning before, on, or after the 

16 date of enactment of this Act; and 

17 (2) the effects of which are experienced on or 

18 after the date of enactment of this Act. 


sradovich on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 194 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 154 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure small 

diseases are eligible for disaster relief. businesses affected by the onset of transmissible 

AUGUST 2, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


sradovich on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. BURCH, et al.,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S- 04-0038 WBS GGH 

vs.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

AT DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel presently is calendared for hearing on June 30, 2005.

Because this motion was filed beyond the discovery deadline as determined by the district court’s

scheduling order, it must be vacated. Revision of the district court’s scheduling orders may only

be made for good cause shown, by the judge who issued the order. In light of the court’s

standing scheduling order, any motion to extend dates in that order must be made before the

district court.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the June 30, 2005 hearing on plaintiffs’

motion to compel, filed May 31, 2005, is vacated.

DATED: 6/27/2005

 /s/Gregory G. Hollows 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Burch38.vac.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 75 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 1
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131484(29) 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: 131484 COA: 265709 Jackson CC: 82-028293-FC WAYNE EARL LaFOUNTAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 2, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration.

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT&"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-08	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7/12/18
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Desmon Loeb,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S-04-0730 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

T. Felker, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and

without counsel in a civil rights action. 

The United States Marshal has returned process directed to

defendant J. Cartier unserved because he could not be found. 

Plaintiff must provide new information about where this defendant

may be served with process. Plaintiff may seek such information

through discovery, the California Public Records Act, California

Government Code § 6250, et seq., or any other means available but 

Case 2:04-cv-00730-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

must proceed with haste because Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires an

action be dismissed as to a defendant not served within 120 days

after filing the complaint unless the time is enlarged based upon

a demonstration of good cause. If plaintiff’s access to the

required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff

may seek judicial intervention.

Accordingly:

1. The clerk of the court shall mail plaintiff one form

USM-285 and a copy of the pleading filed April 12, 2004.

2. Within 90 days from the date this order is signed,

plaintiff may submit the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents with a completed form USM-285 providing instructions

for service of process upon defendant J. Cartier and two copies

of the pleading provided to plaintiff. 

3. If plaintiff does not provide new instructions for

service of process upon defendant J. Cartier within the time

allowed or show good cause for such failure I will recommend this

action be dismissed as to that defendant.

So ordered.

Dated: May 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00730-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Desmon Loeb,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S-04-0730 LKK PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

T. Felker, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed form USM-285 

 2 copies of the April 12, 2004 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00730-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 3
Opinion issued March 10 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00219
- CV

——————————— IN RE BAC TRAC PLUMB ING, LP AND JOSE GRA JALES , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators, Bac Trac Plumbing, LP and Jose Grajales, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s separate orders (1) excluding the testimony of Thomas D. Greider, M.D. and Walter R. Sassard, M.D. , and (2) denying relator s ’ subsequent motion for continuance of trial pursuant to Texas2

Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6(c)

. * We deny the petition. Relators’ motion for emergency stay filed in conjunction with the petition is dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

* The underlying case is Donna Dudley v. Bac Trac Plumbing, LP and Jose Grajales , cause number 2013

- 12224, pending in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer presiding.
# C_2017086EN.01001002.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 December 2016 — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

(Case C-651/16)

(2017/C 086/13)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DW

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra, Rīga.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 45(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the amount of a maternity benefit, does not exclude from the 12-month period which is to be used in determining the average contribution basis the months in which the person worked in an EU institution and was covered by the joint insurance scheme of the European Communities, but that, on the grounds that, during that period, the person was not insured in Latvia, equates her income with the average contribution basis in the State, which may substantially reduce the amount of the maternity benefit granted in comparison with the possible amount of the benefit that the person could have received if, during the period under consideration for the purposes of the calculation, she had not worked for an EU institution but had been employed in Latvia?

---