alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(a)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Chestnov, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jaclyn, 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 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: September 26, 2007            /s/ ROBERT CHESTNOV
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Robert Chestnov, Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in (i) Registration Statements on Form S-16, File
Nos. 2-51894, 2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654; (ii) Registration Statements on
Form S-8, File Nos. 2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934 and 33-33018, 33-54403,
33-54443 and 33-54555; and (iii) Registration Statements on Form S-3, Files
Nos. 2-84910, 33-26314, 33-23880, 33-42698, 33-44871, 33-45091, 33-46999,
33-51115, 33-54317 and 33-69432 of our report dated February 14, 1996, on the 
consolidated financial statements of K N Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries for the 
year ended December 31, 1995.

                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 11, 1996











                                        68
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 

Benjamin D. Territo,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S-04-1460 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Richard W. Sandham, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDecember 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for a

preliminary injunction without the proof of service required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Rule 5-135. Plaintiff shall file a

proof of service within ten days. Otherwise the court will take

no action on the request.

So ordered.

Dated: December 20, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 38 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-1172 GEB GGH P

ORDER

Respondent has filed a request that this case be stayed pending a ruling by the Ninth 

Circuit in Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, Case No. 05-16455, after which respondent

seeks a 30-day extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations filed

January 23, 2006. Respondent makes no showing as to why an appeal could not be filed, should

there be a ruling favorable for respondent in Sass, if this court’s findings and recommendations

are adopted. Moreover, the exigencies of this court’s calendar does not lend itself to the

recommendation of a stay or the granting of such a lengthy time extension to file objections.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 54 Filed 02/28/06 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

27

28

Order

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s February 14, 2006 request for a stay

is denied. The request for an extension of time to file objections to the pending findings and

recommendations is partially granted; respondent must file any objections ten days from the date

of this order.

Dated: 2/28/06 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ande1172.po

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 54 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**ESSEX
      PORTFOLIO, L.P** **.**


**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted**


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








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael T. Dance,
      Principal Financial Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the
“Form
      10-Q”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Essex
      Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for the periods presented.











Date:
      May
      9, 2006     /s/
      Michael T. Dance


Michael
      T. Dance


Chief
      Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,


Essex
      Property Trust, Inc., general partner of


Essex
      Portfolio, L.P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,331
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,131
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,440
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,597
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          78,651
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            74,469
<LOANS>                                        219,193
<ALLOWANCE>                                        743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,802
<DEPOSITS>                                     280,527
<SHORT-TERM>                                       432
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,043
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,196
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 332,802
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,641
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,498
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,451
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,459
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,039
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,360
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,360
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       892
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.5
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,707
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   738
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  743
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               743
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            743



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                Exhibit 12
KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<CAPTION>

                                   1997        1996        1995        1994        1993
                                                       (Thousands)
<S>                            <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net income                         $76,560    $108,171    $122,586    $104,775    $105,772

Add:
Taxes on income                      8,079      31,753      66,803      66,377      67,953
Kansas City earnings tax               392         558         958         524         495

 Total taxes on income               8,471      32,311      67,761      66,901      68,448

Interest on value of
 leased property                     8,309       8,301       8,269       6,732       7,273
Interest on long-term debt          60,298      53,939      52,184      43,962      50,118
Interest on short-term debt          1,382       1,251       1,189       1,170         750
Other interest expense
 and amortization                   12,843       4,840       3,112       4,128       4,113

 Total fixed charges                82,832      68,331      64,754      55,992      62,254

Earnings before taxes
 on income and fixed
 charges                          $167,863    $208,813    $255,101    $227,668    $236,474
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                        2.03        3.06        3.94        4.07        3.80



</TABLE>
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to view reports and manage verification records. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 CHECK PROCESSING ONLINE MODULE 19: VIEWING CHECK PROCESSING REPORTS, CIRA RECORDS, AND HISTORICAL REPORTS Certificate icon19.1 View a Check Processing Report
            PJA
            VideoCIRA CSV ReportCheck Image ReportAgency CIRA ReportLVD Contents ReportOrganization Hierarchy Report215 Deposit Ticket Report5515 Debit Voucher ReportACR Activity ReportStatistical Report19.2 View a CIRA RecordView a CIRA Record19.3 View Historical ReportsCIRA CSV Historical ReportView Previously Generated Historical Reports
 MODULE 20: MANAGING VERIFICATION RECORDS Certificate icon20.1 Search for an MVD Record
              PJA
              VideoSearch for an MVD RecordCertificate icon20.2 Create an MVD RecordCreate an MVD RecordCertificate icon20.3 Edit an MVD RecordEdit an MVD Record
 Welcome
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Juan Carlos Flores v. State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-00277-CR

Trial court case number: 1531168D

Trial court: Criminal District Court No. 4 of Tarrant County

Appellant, Juan Carlos Flores, filed a notice of appeal from a trial court judgment signed 

on March 15, 2019. On May 14, 2019, the court reporter filed in this Court a sealed reporter’s 

record containing a presentence investigation report (“PSI”). Flores has filed an “Unopposed 

Motion For Order Granting Parties’ Access To Sealed Materials in the Record on Appeal” by 

which his counsel seeks to obtain a copy of this sealed record for use in preparing the appellant’s 

brief.

We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing, at which counsel 

for the parties shall be present, to determine whether the sealed PSI may be released for inspection. 

The trial court shall make findings and issue an order specifying:

(1) whether the sealed PSI may be released for inspection or access to the sealed record 

permitted; and

(2) if that sealed record or any portions of it may be released or accessed:

a. the person or persons to whom the sealed record may be released or the person 

or persons who may have access to the sealed record;

b. any limitations on release or access, e.g., whether the sealed record may be 

viewed or inspected only at this Court’s Clerk’s Office or whether the sealed 

record or a copy of the sealed record may be viewed or inspected in Tarrant 

County at a place designated by the trial court.

1

 See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(g), 

34.6(h);

 

1 The Supreme Court of Texas, pursuant to its docket-equalization authority, transferred 

this appeal from the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth to this Court. See 
c. whether the sealed record may be copied and, if appropriate, provide for the 

return or disposal of any copies;

d. the purpose for which the sealed record may be used and any limitations on 

access or disclosure, including any use in appellate briefs or other documents.

The trial court may make any other findings and recommendations the court deems appropriate.

The trial court clerk is ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial 

court’s findings and any order within 30 days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. 

The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket without further order of the Court when 

the supplemental clerk’s record is filed with this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __May 30, 2019____

 

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (“The supreme court may order cases transferred from one 

court of appeals to another at any time that, in the opinion of the supreme court, there is 

good cause for the transfer.”).
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

BYRON CHAPMAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1339 LKK CMK

Plaintiff,

O R D E R

v.

PIER 1 IMPORTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendant's request to clarify the

court's June 16, 2006 order. The court believes that the order

speaks for itself. Nonetheless, and in an excess of caution

concerning the reading comprehension of the moving party, the court

makes the following observations as to the June 16th order. 

Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to the American with

Disabilities Act and several state law claims, specifically, the

Unruh Act (California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.), and The Disabled

Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.) As explicitly

noted in the June 16 order, all the other state law claims raised

Case 2:04-cv-01339-MCE-AC Document 95 Filed 07/10/06 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

in plaintiff's complaint were abandoned by plaintiff prior

to the cross-motions for summary judgment. Thus, there was and is

no occasion for the court to address the abandoned state law

claims.

 With respect to plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Disabled

Persons Act, the court notes that neither party briefed this claim.

As stated in the order, the court "will only adjudicate those

claims which are clearly being moved on. For that reason, the

court declines to adjudicate the related state law claims which

have not been briefed by either party." Order of June 16, 2006,

at 8.

In short, the court only adjudicated the claims upon which the

parties moved. The court did not adjudicate claims which were

either explicitly abandoned or were not briefed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 6, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01339-MCE-AC Document 95 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RILEY NOONKESTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1571 DFL KJM P

vs.

CLAY PARKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed August 5, 2004, plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended civil

action. The time has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended civil action or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01571-DFL -KJM Document 5 Filed 10/20/05 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 20, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

noon1571.fta

Case 2:04-cv-01571-DFL -KJM Document 5 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2
| NASS       Home | Other       NASS Publications | **Monthly       Ag. Newsletter** |
|-----------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|

|  |
|--|

|                                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Table of Contents**                                                                                                                                       |
|  HTML Files:

NASS OverviewCropsFarm Economics and DemographicsEnvironmentalLivestock                                                                  |  PDF Files:Entire Publication  (377k)

NASS OverviewCropsFarm Economics and DemographicsEnvironmentalLivestock |
| ***Statistical Highlights*** for 2001/02      and 2002/03 is also available in a plain **TEXT      File.**                                                  |
| ****      Other Years Available:****1995/96  1996/97           1997/98  1998/99           1999/00  2000/012001/02** |
Before Chief Judge Rao,

January 30, 1968

No. R68/13.

reappraisements R64/21763, etc. (New York).

#### Shalom Baby Wear, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and relevant facts are the same in 'all material respects as those in *Shalom Baby-Wear, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of Value for the various articles of cotton wearing apparel and that such value is the appraised value, less the buying commission as stated on the invoices.
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

CLARENCE JOSEPH HAYES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1305 DFL JFM P

vs.

DERRICK OLLISON, Acting Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 16, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01305-DFL -JFM Document 28 Filed 06/24/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 16, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s September 27, 2004 motion to dismiss be granted; and

3. This action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: 6/23/2005

 /s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/haye1305.805

Case 2:04-cv-01305-DFL -JFM Document 28 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2