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

CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, the Chief Executive Officer, of Witness Systems, Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of the registrant;

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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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:



|Dated: March 15, 2005 |  |     |  |                                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | BY: |  | /S/ DAVID B. GOULDDavid B. Gould Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

                   ------------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of PARK HILL CAPITAL I CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
Mailhot, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 28, 2005


                                        /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                        -------------------
                                        Francis Mailhot,
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Appellant, v City of Dunkirk Assessor et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 405]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v City of Dunkirk Assessor*(221 AD2d 912 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—RPTL art 7.) Present— Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
No. 51759.

#### Protests 600926-G, etc., of Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 65555.

#### Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13123, etc. (New York).

*456Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that tbe principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the quantities of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 50479.

#### Protests 44214-K, etc., of Kaufmann Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. (Pittsburgh, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit
32





Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
Angelo De Caro and Robert F. O’Connell, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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













/s/ Angelo De
      CaroAngelo
      De CaroChief
      Executive Officer/s/ Robert F.
      O’ConnellRobert F.
      O’ConnellChief
      Financial Officer





March 14,
2008










A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
2014.12.31 - 10K EX 10.12






December 31, 2014




Re:    Renewal of Amended and Restated Retention Agreement
Dear David:
This letter is to serve as your notification that Ply Gem Industries, Inc. has elected to execute its Renewal Term right under your current Amended and Restated Retention Agreement dated December 31, 2008 for a period of one year.  As such, all applicable rights and terms as outlined in your Amended and Restated Retention Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2015.
Please sign this letter in the space provided below as your acknowledgement and agreement of this Renewal Term agreement and return this original to me, and retain a copy for your own records.


	
		
	 
	Sincerely,

	 
	 

	 
	PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Name:  Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ David Schmoll
	 

	David Schmoll
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
724 Solutions Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-42142, 333-55769) on Form S-8 of 724 Solutions Inc. of our report
dated January 23, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 724
Solutions Inc., as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in
the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of 724 Solutions Inc.


                                    KPMG LLP


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


                              Chartered Accountants
                                 Toronto Canada


March 28, 2002
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Good morning, 

Susan Forsberg <susanforsberg20@gmail.com> 

Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:41 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Mokulele Airlines to Kalaupapa 

\.-' i 

I am writing to let you know how vital it is for the people that live and work down on Kalaupapa to have air 

service to get 

them to Drs appts, to the hospital etc. It is impossible for them to walk up the Sea Cliffs: 3.5 miles, 26 

switchbacks and 1600'. 

It is challenging for those of us on Molokai let alone down in Kalaupapa. 

Mokulele Airlines have been a true blessing to all the people here on Molokai. They are fast, on time , very 

friendly and, in my opinion, the best airline that service Molokai. They would provide a much needed service 

to the people down in Kalaupapa. · 

It is my suggestion that you award Mokulele Airlines the ability to service Kalaupapa. 

Thank you for your consideration. I hope you all have a Happy Thanksgiving. 

Mahalo, 

Susan Forsberg 

Molokai Fish and Dive 

#808-553-5926 - store phone 

www .molokaifishanddive.com 

www .scubadivemolokai.com 

www .snorkelmolokai.com 

www .whalewatchmolokai.com 

1
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of IceWEB, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark B. Lucky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  December 26, 2007
        /s/ Mark B. Lucky
 Mark B. Lucky, Chief Financial Officer and principal financial and accounting officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 42905.

#### Protest 972722-G of Roland Syndicate, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), and Abstract 41633 the calendars and pencil sharpeners in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
Exhibit 11.0

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<table>
<caption>
                                                    Three months ended    Three months ended
                                                      March 31, 2007         March 31, 2006
                                                      -------------------------------------

                                                   <c>                    <c>
Income available to common stockholders               $      383,333         $       42,740

Weighted average shares outstanding                        2,675,233              2,694,074

Basic earnings per share                              $         0.14         $         0.02

Income for diluted earnings per share                 $      383,333         $       42,740

Total weighted average common shares and
    equivalents outstanding for diluted computation        2,675,233              2,694,074

Diluted earnings per share                            $         0.14         $         0.02


</table>

                                       18
Before the First Division,

April 30, 1948

No. 52295.

protests 565540-K, etc. (San Francisco and Seattle).

#### China Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH ORVAL McCONNELL, Jr., Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

18 USCMA 214, 39 CMR 214

No. 21,719

March 21, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. ■ The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> *“We*believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 88(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Jackson, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 407]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated August 28, 1989 *(People v Jackson,*153 AD2d 759), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 13, 1986, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Before the Second Division,

April 13, 1949

No. 53025.

#### H. P. Lambert Co. *v.*United States,

protest 132411-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

When the case was called for hearing it was stipulated that the importation in question actually consisted of padlocks, not of pin tumbler or cylinder construction, and that the locks measured *1%*inches wide. Upon the agreed statement of facts the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Disability Rights Section

OMB No. 1190-0009

Instructions: Please fill out this form completely, in black ink or type. Sign and return to the address on page

3.

Complainant:

Address:

City, State and Zip Code:

Telephone: Home:

Business:

Person Discriminated Against:

(if other than the complainant)

Address:

City, State, and Zip Code:

Telephone: Home:

Business:

Government, or organization, or institution which you believe has discriminated:

Name:

Title II Complaint Form http://www.ada.gov/t2cmpfrm.htm

1 of 4 7/1/2013 3:30 PM
Address:

County:

City:

State and Zip Code:

Telephone Number:

When did the discrimination occur? Date:

Describe the acts of discrimination providing the name(s) where possible of the individuals who discriminated

(use space on page 3 if necessary):

Have efforts been made to resolve this complaint through the internal grievance procedure of the government,

organization, or institution?

Yes______ No______

If yes: what is the status of the grievance?

Has the complaint been filed with another bureau of the Department of Justice or any other Federal, State, or

local civil rights agency or court?

Yes______ No______

If yes:

Agency or Court:

Title II Complaint Form http://www.ada.gov/t2cmpfrm.htm

2 of 4 7/1/2013 3:30 PM
Contact Person:

Address:

City, State, and Zip Code:

Telephone Number:

Date Filed:

Do you intend to file with another agency or court?

Yes______ No______

Agency or Court:

Address:

City, State and Zip Code:

Telephone Number:

Additional space for answers:

Signature: _________________________________________

Title II Complaint Form http://www.ada.gov/t2cmpfrm.htm

3 of 4 7/1/2013 3:30 PM
Date: ________________________________

Return to:

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Disability Rights - NYAV

Washington, D.C. 20530

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public burden for the collection of this

information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response. Comments regarding this collection of

information should be directed to the Department Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Justice, Justice

Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution

Square, 145 North Street, N.E., Room 2E–508, Washington, D.C. 20530.

OMB No. 1190-0009. Expiration Date: May 31, 2015.

last updated May 7, 2012

Title II Complaint Form http://www.ada.gov/t2cmpfrm.htm

4 of 4 7/1/2013 3:30 PM
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                      
|----- |  | ---------------------
|      |  | /s/ PATRICK F. CONROY
|Name: |  | Patrick F. Conroy    
|Date: |  | August 11, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 15-60592 

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

TESLIM OLAREWAJU KIRIJI, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 1:14-CR-33-2 

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Teslim Olarewaju Kiriji appeals his sentence of 240 months of 

imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for conspiracy to commit money laundering 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (h). He argues that the 

Government breached its promise in the plea agreement to recommend a 

sentence within the lower 25% of the applicable guideline range, and he also 

 

1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60592 Document: 00513652735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2016
No. 15-60592

2

argues that the district court erred in calculating his offense level. The 

Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary 

affirmance based on the waiver in the plea agreement of Kiriji’s right to appeal 

his sentence on any ground. Kiriji argues that the waiver is unenforceable 

because of the alleged breach and because he did not knowingly agree to it 

insofar as he did not know at the time of his guilty plea that the district court 

would commit the specific sentencing errors he now alleges. 

Although “an alleged breach of a plea agreement may be raised despite 

a waiver provision,” United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 2010), 

our review of the record shows that the Government did not breach the 

agreement as its conduct was not clearly or obviously inconsistent with a 

reasonable understanding of its obligations, United States v. Cantu, 185 F.3d 

298, 304 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133-

38 (2009) (holding that the plain error standard governs a claim of breach first 

raised on appeal). Also, the record shows that Kiriji understood the possible 

penalties for his offense and that he knew that he had a right to appeal his 

sentence and was giving up that right. United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 

566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(N). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is 

GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-60592 Document: 00513652735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2016
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-20222

Summary Calendar

EARNEST EDWARD DACUS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster General,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-93-2309)

November 28, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant was employed by the Postal Service and was fired

after being indicted for a drug offense. He filed a claim with the

EEOC and the Merit Systems Protection Board seeking reinstatement,

to no avail. Appellant then filed this suit alleging race

discrimination as the reason he was not reinstated. The Appellee

moved for summary judgment which the district court granted.
2

Appellant appeals. We affirm. 

In this Court, Appellant first complains that the district

court’s consideration of prior EEOC proceedings relating to his

firing and attempted reinstatement deprived him of his right to

trial de novo under Title VII. His position is wrong as a matter

of law. The United States Supreme Court decision which recognizes

the right to de novo trial in federal Title VII actions also

declared that “[p]rior administrative findings made with respect to

an employment discrimination claim may, of course, be admitted as

evidence at a federal sector trial de novo,”. Chandler v.

Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 863 n.39. See also Fed. R. of Evid.

803(8)(c). Cortes v. Maxus Exploration Co., 977 F.2d 195 (5th Cir.

1992). The documented proceedings were submitted in support of

Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and were properly

considered. There is no rule which makes summary judgment

procedures inapplicable in federal Title VII proceedings. 

Appellant also complains that the district court deprived him

of discovery. The record shows, however, that the parties were

afforded by the pretrial order the period from October 15, 1993 to

October 14, 1994 for discovery. During this period, Appellant did

no discovery. He first sought discovery five days after the

discovery period ended. The Appellee objected and the district

court sustained the objection. We find no abuse of discretion in

that action.

AFFIRMED.