alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas E. Noonan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of InternetSecurity Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting.   Date:May 10, 2004 /s/ Thomas E. Noonan   Thomas E. Noonan Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20108

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(H-94-CV-3853)

______________________________________________

October 31, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ashok Kumar Khanna, federal prisoner # 46985-079, appeals the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. He argues that

the district court erred in granting the Government’s motion for

summary judgment and in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his
2

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s

advice to go to trial and to stand by his trial testimony at

sentencing. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s

opinion, and appellant’s brief and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court.

United States v. Khanna, No. H-88-190 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 1995).

Khanna’s argument that counsel was ineffective for advising him to

stand by his trial testimony is deemed abandoned for failure to

brief it adequately. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
MARK SMITH,ET AL., BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. Complainants, v.

Docket No. 16-16-02 CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, Respondent. NOTICE OF CHANGE OFFIRM ADDRESS Please take notice that ScottP. Lewis, DavidS. Mackey, Jessica A. Wall, and thefinn Anderson

& Kreiger LLP, counsel for City of Santa Monica, Califomia, have changed their address effective October

1,2016to: ANDERSON

& KREIGER LLP 50Milk Street, 21st Floor Boston,MA021 09 Sctt

.Lewis Dav1a S. Mackey JessicaA. Wall ANDERSON

& KREIGER LLP 1Canal Park, Suite 200 Cambridge, MA 02141 617.621.6560 slewis@andersonkreiger.

com --Marsha Moutrie City Attorney Joseph Lawrence Assistant City Attorney Ivan 0. Campbell Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SANTA MONICA 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310.458.8233 Marsha.Moutrie@smgov

.net CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE I hereby certify in accordance with 14 C.F.R.

§ 16.13 that

I have onthis day served the foregoing Notice of Firm Address Change onthe following persons
at the following addresses by email and first class mail: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 9-A WA-AGC-Pmi- 6@faa.gov September 27, 2016

..· .....-- Richard K. Simon 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 310-503-7286 rsimon3 @verizon.net
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2661

___________ Genick Bar-Meir, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North American Die Casting * District of Minnesota. Association, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 2002 Filed: December 26, 2002

___________ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Genick Bar-Meir filed this action against the North American Die Casting Association (NADCA), requesting an order that the domain name “nadca.org” should remain with him. NADCA filed counterclaims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. , seeking injunctive relief and damages. We previously affirmed in an interlocutory appeal the district court’s 1 grant of injunctive relief and summary2 Magistrate Judge Nelson. -2- judgment to NADCA, and we now affirm the remaining pretrial orders 2that Bar-Meir challenges on appeal. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its discovery rulings. See SDI Operating P’ship v. Neuwirth , 973 F.2d 652, 655 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review). We also hold the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose the costs of personal service on NADCA, given that Bar-Meir did not show compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2)(D); or in refusing to continue a hearing on the summary judgment motion, see Wisland v. Admiral Beverage Corp. , 119 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 1997) (district court is given wide authority and discretion to manage its caseload), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 1112 (1998). We further hold the district court did not err in denying Bar-Meir’s motion to vacate the reference to the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). We do not consider the propriety of the district court’s damages award, as Bar-Meir did not argue the issue on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (appellant’s brief must contain contentions on issues presented and reasons for them); Etheridge v. United States , 241 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 2001) (claims not argued on appeal are abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

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

 

I, Christopher J. Willi, certify that:

 

1.      I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.      The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

 

(a)       designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)       evaluated the effectivenessof the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”);and

 

(c)       presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.      The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)       all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the Registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

(b)       any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.                 TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterlyreport whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date:  December 12, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Christopher J. Willi |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Christopher J. Willi     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 3.1 (d)


                             CERTIFICATE OF CHANGE

                                      OF

                               MALLINCKRODT INC.

              Under Section 805-A of the Business Corporation Law


          FIRST: The name of the corporation is Mallinckrodt Inc.

          SECOND: The certificate of incorporation of the corporation was filed
by the Department of State on June 14, 1909, under the original name
International Agricultural Corporation.

          THIRD: The certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby
changed, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of Directors of the
corporation, so as to change the post office address to which the Secretary of
State shall mail a copy of any process against the corporation served upon him
and to change the designation of registered agent.  To accomplish said changes:

          (a)  The following statement of said post office address to which the
Secretary of State shall mail a copy of process is substituted:

          "The post office address within the State of New York to which
          the Secretary of State shall mail a copy of any process against
          the corporation served upon him is c/o Corporation Service
          Company, 80 State Street, Albany, New York 12207-2543."

          (b)  The following statement of designation of registered agent is
substituted:

          "The name and address of the registered agent of the
          corporation are Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street,
          Albany New York 12207-2543. Said registered agent is to be the
          agent upon which process against the corporation may be
          served."

     Signed on April 11, 2000.


     /s/ Frank A. Voltolina
     -----------------------------
     Frank A. Voltolina Vice Pres./Treas.
No. 62499.

#### The Fan Co. and National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 284437-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 676), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
=ME

court did not abuse its discretion by determining that a mistrial was required by manifest necessity and did not violate Hoffman's double jeopardy rights. 

### See id. at 702, 220 P.3d at 692 ("A deadlocked jury is the classic example of the 'manifest necessity' for mistrial before final verdict that will permit retrial without offense to a defendant's double jeopardy rights."). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Douglas

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4293 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4293

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 
 Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 
                       States Courthouse Annex''.

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

SECTION 1. EUGENE E. SILER, JR. UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE ANNEX.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse annex located at 310 
South Main Street in London, Kentucky, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse annex referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse 
Annex''.

            Passed the Senate September 25, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4293

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 
 Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 
                       States Courthouse Annex''.
```
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 

Brian Lee Christman,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0884 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this

civil rights action on the claim defendant Micheletti violated

plaintiff’s rights by encouraging plaintiff’s cell-mate, who had

a reputation for violence, to attack plaintiff and then

purposefully delayed obtaining medical attention for plaintiff. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), plaintiff moves to

compel defendants to respond to requests to inspect and copy

documents. 

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with 

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 47 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). But plaintiff has not

demonstrated he has served upon defendants any requests for

documents.

Therefore, I hereby deny plaintiff’s November 2, 2005,

motions.

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 47 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2
**SBA**
**U.S. Small Business Administration**
***Champions of America's Entrepreneurs***
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **ESSEX
        PORTFOLIO, L.P.**
 
 CERTIFICATION
        OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
        OFFICER
 PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with this quarterly report of Essex
        Portfolio, L.P. on
        Form
        10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Guericke,
        Principal Executive Officer **** of
        Essex
        Property Trust, Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio,
        L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
        18,
        Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
        knowledge:
 
 (1)
        the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, 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 at the dates
        and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 
 Date:
        August 9, 2005    /s/
        Keith R.
        Guericke
 Keith
        R.
        Guericke
 Chief
        Executive Officer, Director and
 Vice
        Chairman of the Board, Essex
 Property
        Trust, Inc., general partner of
 Essex
        Portfolio, L.P.
No. 58528.

protests 177907-K, etc. (New York).

#### The London Gramophone Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper coverings containing phonograph records the subject of *United States*v. *Radio Corp. of America, RCA Victor Division*(41 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 541), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending April 30, 2004, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

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

 

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

 

 

Dated: June 11, 2004

 

 
|   |                                             | /s/ Uziel Frydman |   |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Uziel Frydman                                    |              |
|   | Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer |              |

 

----
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

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for the appointment of counsel and for

evidentiary hearing and discovery.” That document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is

advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on

defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by

placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of

any defendants, then documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on

the defendants. Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner

proceeding pro se) must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document

was mailed to defendants or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local

Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 24 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 2
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

In addition, plaintiff states that he is seeking appointment of counsel for a habeas

corpus action. The instant action is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 19, 2005 “motion

for the appointment of counsel and for evidentiary hearing and discovery,” is denied without

prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to properly serve any documents subsequently filed

in this action, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 5/3/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

wood1225.35

 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 24 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1576 

To provide that the owner of a water right may use the water for the 

cultivation of industrial hemp, if otherwise authorized by State law. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2017 

Mr. BENNET (for himself, Mr. DAINES, Mr. TESTER, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. 

WYDEN, and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that the owner of a water right may use the 

water for the cultivation of industrial hemp, if otherwise 

authorized by State law. 

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 ‘‘Industrial Hemp 

5 Water Rights Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF WATER FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP CULTIVA7 TION. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.—In this sec9 tion, the term ‘‘industrial hemp’’ has the meaning given 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1576 IS

1 the term in section 7606(b) of the Agricultural Act of 

2 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940(b)). 

3 (b) USE FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP CULTIVATION.— 

4 Notwithstanding the Controlled Substances Act (21 

5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), chapter 81 of title 41, United States 

6 Code, or any other Federal law, an owner of an absolute 

7 or conditional water right, or an entity that receives or 

8 distributes water contracted from the Federal Govern9 ment, may use or sell for use by another person the water 

10 subject to the water right or the contract, as applicable, 

11 for the cultivation of industrial hemp, regardless of wheth12 er the water has passed through a Federal water project, 

13 if the growth or cultivation of industrial hemp is otherwise 

14 authorized under the laws of the State in which such use 

15 occurs. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS