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



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Nigel P. Ekern, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Net Perceptions, 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. I am 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 my supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions] (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) 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. I have disclosed, based on my 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: May 11, 2004 /s/ Nigel P. EkernNigel P. EkernChief Administrative Officer
#### U. S. OIL OF LOUISIANA, LTD., et al. v. LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT CO.

No. 60678.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1977.

In re: Louisiana Power and Light Co., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 350 So.2d 907.

Denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00435-CV

Everett W. GREGORY Jr. and Marcia Gregory,

Appellants

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Jesse R. Mendoza,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI05064

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or before October 14, 2015; however, it has not 

yet been filed. Because no brief has been filed, it is ORDERED appellant show cause in writing 

within ten days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a).

Response should include a reasonable explanation for failure to timely file the brief and 

should demonstrate affirmative steps taken to remedy the deficiency. If appellant intends for the

response to act as a motion for extension of time, it must comply with Rule 10.5 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Fourth Court of Appeals’ local rules. If appellant no 

longer wishes to pursue this appeal, the response should include a motion to dismiss. 

If this Court does not receive an adequate response within ten days, the appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                    APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

                  CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED)(1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           MARCH 31, 2000
                                                                           --------------
<S>                                                                      <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
     Shares outstanding at beginning of period                                 21,413,362
     Weighted average shares issued during three months
     ended March 31, 2000 (1,869,269 shares)                                    1,691,940
                                                                             ------------
                                                                               23,105,302
                                                                             ============
Net loss                                                                     $(10,988,000)
                                                                             ============
Loss per share attributable to common stockholders                           $      (0.48)
                                                                             ============
</TABLE>

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

(1)For a discussion of loss per share, see Note D of the Notes to the Financial
   Statements provided in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the period ended
   March 31, 2000.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

MA-07 Fannie Stebbins Road & 

Parking Lot

Rehabilitation & 

Resurfacing

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Silvio O. Conte 

National Wildlife Refuge

Town of 

Longmeadow Hamden 2018

MA-08 Downtown Pedestrian 

Improvements

Pedestrian safety & 

connectivity 

improvements

National Park Service - 

Lowell National Historical 

Park

City of Lowell Middlesex 2017

MA-09 Pawtucket Canal Bridge 

Improvements

Pedestrian & light 

vehicle safety & 

connectivity 

improvements

National Park Service - 

Lowell National Historical 

Park

City of Lowell Middlesex 2017

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Massachusetts Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Massachusetts FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

Massachusetts Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2015-2018

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The Massachusetts PDC does not have a firm date for the 

next Call for Projects under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. 

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-01809]


Berg Electronics, Inc., Lee's Summit, Missouri; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with 
section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (19 USC 2273), an investigation was initiated on July 
9, 1997, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Berg 
Electronics, Inc., Lee's Summit, Missouri.
    The petitioning group of workers are covered under an existing 
NAFTA-TAA certification (NAFTA-01092). Consequently, further 
investigation in this case would service no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 8th day of October 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-28254 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,633
<SECURITIES>                                    11,796
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,060
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,406
<PP&E>                                          44,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,583
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           10,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           248
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,547
<SALES>                                         54,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,777
<CGS>                                           38,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   506
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (38,121)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.59)


</TABLE>
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09831**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  09831\09831_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09831\09831_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09831\09831_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09831\09831_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09831\09831_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09831\09831_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09831\Certification Statement_09831.pdf Plant certification statement x 09831\Follow up\09831 Seward Clarification.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 09831\Follow up\09831-Follow up e-mail.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_Part A_A5-2 AERIAL MAP_Seward.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_Part A_A5-2 WATER BALANCE WB-1_Seward.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_Part C_C2-31 FLY ASH DIAGRAM SEWARD.xlsx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_Part C_C2-31 FLY ASH DIAGRAM SEWARD_Seward.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_Part C_C3-36 BED ASH DIAGRAM.xlsx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_Part C_C3-36 BED ASH DIAGRAM_Seward.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09831\Supporting Documentation\09831_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09831\09831_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09831\09831_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4(jjj)

                          [LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LOGO]

                          Home Office: Cincinnati, Ohio
   Variable Administrative Office: P.O. Box 5423, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-5423

                                   ENDORSEMENT


This endorsement is part of your Certificate. It replaces the DEATH BENEFIT
AMOUNT provision. It is not a separate contract. It changes your Certificate
only as stated here. If it conflicts with the other terms of your Certificate,
the provisions of this endorsement will control.

        DEATH BENEFIT AMOUNT

        The amount of the Death Benefit will equal the greatest of:

                1)      the Account Value on the Death Benefit Valuation Date;

                2)      the total of all your Purchase Payment(s), reduced
                        proportionally for any partial surrenders; or

                3)      the Historic High Value.

        The Historic High Value is equal to the lesser of [200%] of the total
        Purchase Payment(s), reduced proportionally for partial surrenders, or
        the High Value, reduced proportionally for partial surrenders taken
        after the High Value was reached. The High Value is the largest Account
        Value on the fifth or any subsequent Contract Anniversary, but before
        the Death Benefit Valuation Date and prior to Age [65]. If this Contract
        was issued to you after Age [60], there is no High Value. This means
        there is no Historic High Value.

        The reduction for partial surrenders will be in the same proportion that
        the Account Value was reduced on the date of the partial surrender.

        The Death Benefit Amount will be reduced by any applicable premium tax
        or other tax. It will also be reduced by any outstanding loans.

        The Death Benefit Amount will be allocated among the Subaccounts and
        Fixed Account options. This allocation will occur as of the Death
        Benefit Valuation Date. It will be made in the same proportion as the
        value of each option bears to the total Account Value immediately before
        that date.

                Signed for us at our office as of the date of issue.



        /s/ MARK F. MUETHING                       /s/ CHARLES R. SCHEPER
             SECRETARY                                     PRESIDENT
           MARK F. MUETHING                           CHARLES R. SCHEPER
#### Tonya Kay AUTRY v. STATE.

No. 37886.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Appeals dismissed without opinion.
No. 00-511.

No. 00-555.

No. 00-587.

No. 00-590.

No. 00-602.

#### Verizon Communications Inc. et al. *v.*Federal Communications Commission et al.; WorldCom, Inc., et al. *v.*Verizon Communications Inc. et al.; Federal Communications Commission et al. *v.*Iowa Utilities Board et al.; AT&T Corp. *v.*Iowa Utilities Board et al.; and General Communications, Inc. *v.*Iowa Utilities Board et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions: “(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that 47 U. S. C. § 252(d)(1) (Telecommunications Act of 1996) forecloses the cost methodology adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, which is based on the efficient replacement cost of existing technology, for determining the interconnection rates that new entrants into local telecommunications markets must pay incumbent local telephone companies. (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that neither the Takings Clause nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier’s ‘historical’ costs into the rates that it may charge new entrants for access to its network elements. (3) Whether 47 U. S. C. § 251(c)(3) *1125prohibits regulators from requiring that incumbent local telephone companies combine certain previously uncombined network elements when a new entrant requests the combination and agrees to compensate the incumbent for performing that task.” Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 219 F. 3d 744.
The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable H. David Young, United States

Magistrate for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-3570

___________

James McAlphin, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

S. Rogers, L.P.N.; Nurse Parker; * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Dr. Thomas, Delta Regional Unit; * [UNPUBLISHED]

PHP Healthcare Corporation, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 5, 1996

 Filed: June 11, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James McAlphin appeals from the district court's order dismissing

1

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs

and the record (including the hearing transcript), we conclude the district

court correctly determined that McAlphin failed to establish that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
2950

3000

2950

2950

2900

2900

3000

3000

3000

3000

2900

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

2950

2900

2950

2950

2950

3000

3000

3000

3000

3000

2850

2900

2850

2950

3000

3000

2950

2950

2950

2900

RD 24

S RD V

CO RD 18

S RD S

S RD P

CO RD 23

CO RD 20

CO RD 22

DD RD

CC RD

RD 20

S RD R

RD DD

RD 24

S RD V

CO RD 18

S RD S

S RD P

CO RD 23

CO RD 20

CO RD 22

DD RD

CC RD

RD 20

S RD R

RD DD

Cimarron River

North Fork Cimarron River

North Fork Cimarron

River

North Fork Cimarron River

O'Dea

Cemetery

O'Dea

Cemetery

41

40

41

41

41

42

41

43

41

44

41

45

41

46

41

47

41

48

41

49

41

50

41

51

41

39

41

52000mN

41

40

41

41

41

42

41

43

41

44

41

45

41

46

41

47

41

48

41

49

41

50

41

51

41

39000mN

41

52

3

02 3

03 3

04 305 306 307 308 3

09 310 301 311000m

E

3

03 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 3

02000mE 3

12

520 000FEET

550 000FEET

1 590000

1 620 000

FEET

FEET

25'

27'30"

25'

27'30"

12'30" 10'

101°15' 12'30" 10'

101°15'

37°30' 37°30'

101°07'30"

101°07'30"

37°22'30" 37°22'30"

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

MOSCOW NW, KS

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

MOSCOW NW QUADRANGLE

KANSAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14S

Imagery.................................NAIP, July 2008 - August 2008

Roads.........................National Transportation Dataset, 2006

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2006

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Kansas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 20 ́

24 MILS

6° 49 ́

121 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14S

LG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Moscow

NW

Ulysses

Moscow SE

Hickok SE

Ryus

Wagon Bed

Spring

Hickok

Wagon Bed Moscow Spring SE

KANSAS
Case 1:03-cv-00042-MBC   Document 28   Filed 09/26/05   Page 1 of 5

Case 1:03-cv-00042-MBC   Document 28   Filed 09/26/05   Page 2 of 5

Case 1:03-cv-00042-MBC   Document 28   Filed 09/26/05   Page 3 of 5

Case 1:03-cv-00042-MBC   Document 28   Filed 09/26/05   Page 4 of 5

Case 1:03-cv-00042-MBC   Document 28   Filed 09/26/05   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2014-03-10T16:29:58-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
255 La. 475

#### George E. CRAIG and James Sullivan v. J. K. (Woody) BURCH, d/b/a Burch Tire Company, et al.

No. 50344.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1970.

In re: J. K. (Woody) Burch d/b/a Burch Tire Company applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 228 So.2d 723.

Writ .refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                        FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the quarterly report of Seminis, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gaspar Alvarez
Martinez, Vice President, Finance and Worldwide Corporate Comptroller of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b), as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.

Date: August 9, 2004

                                         /s/ Gaspar Alvarez Martinez
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Gaspar Alvarez Martinez
                                         VP Finance and WW Corporate Comptroller

                                       43