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

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Charles J. Hinkaty, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Laboratories, 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 quarterly 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)) 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 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 function):

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 12, 2006




                                                  /S/ CHARLES J. HINKATY
                                                  ----------------------
                                                      Charles J. Hinkaty
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32

                   CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C.SS.1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Decorator Industries, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, William A. Bassett, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
and Michael K. Solomon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: November 14, 2005             By: /s/  William A. Bassett
                                        -----------------------
                                        William A. Bassett,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President


Date: November 14, 2005             By: /s/  Michael K. Solomon
                                        -----------------------
                                        Michael K. Solomon,
                                        Chief Financial Officer
No. 10004.

#### Spink *v.*Spink, Admx.

Decided March 3, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Otis H. Fisk,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Bates & Meyer,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-208-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

January 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 27, 1995, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing the following report.
    Pursuant to Section 34 (Crediting of Excess Revenues) of the 
General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of Columbia Gulf's FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, Columbia Gulf calculated revenues 
applicable to Rate Schedules ITS-1 and ITS-2 (Applicable Rate 
Schedules) for the twelve-month period ended October 31, 1996. Based 
upon the calculations, the revenues generated were not sufficient to 
result in any Excess Revenues for crediting.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before January 9, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-346 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7142
STEVEN J. REED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK DREW, Sheriff; CAPTAIN WILKIE, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-4-3) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven J. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Steven J. Reed appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Reed v. Drew , No. CA-98- 4-3 (E.D. Va. July 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7088 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7088

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as the ``Senator Jack Hill 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SENATOR JACK HILL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Senator Jack Hill Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Senator 
Jack Hill Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7088

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as the ``Senator Jack Hill 
                        Post Office Building''.
```
#### Henry G. BAARS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF PENSACOLA, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. Q-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

Henry R. Barksdale, of Barksdale, Mayo & Murphy, Pensacola, for appellants.

Don J. Catón, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

See City of St. Petersburg v. Alkin et al., 217 So.2d 315 (Fla.1968).

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

DATA DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                      --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                          1997           1996          1997            1996
                                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>      
  Common stock outstanding                              9,710,226      9,230,261      9,710,226      9,230,261
  Common stock equivalents:
    Common stock warrants, if dilutive                    174,902        653,603        174,902        653,603
    Common stock options - incremental shares             165,814         71,895        102,332         56,277
                                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
  Weighted average shares outstanding                  10,050,942      9,955,759      9,987,460      9,940,141
                                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

  Net income, as adjusted:
     Before extraordinary item                        $     2,825    $     2,530    $     8,447    $     7,684
     Extraordinary item available for common stock            -              -              -              (54)
                                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
         Net income available for common stock        $     2,825    $     2,530    $     8,447    $     7,630
                                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

  Primary earnings per share
     Before extraordinary item                        $      0.28    $      0.25    $      0.85    $      0.77
     Extraordinary item available for common stock
                                                              -              -              -              -  
                                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
         Net income available for common stock        $      0.28    $      0.25    $      0.85    $      0.77
                                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>



                                       14
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7232 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7232

     To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Juneteenth 
     Independence Day as a Federal holiday, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2020

Ms. Jackson Lee (for herself, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Vela, Mr. 
 Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Kim, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Allred, Mr. 
  Green of Texas, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Doggett, Ms. 
 Garcia of Texas, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. 
    Bustos, Ms. Adams, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. McEachin, Mr. Thompson of 
 Mississippi, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Moore, Ms. Finkenauer, Ms. Wexton, Mrs. 
    Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Mr. Van Drew, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Stevens, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
  Bera, Mr. Trone, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Johnson of 
 Georgia, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. 
Engel, Mr. Espaillat, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cooper, Ms. 
 Dean, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Scanlon, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Beatty, 
 Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Omar, Mrs. Luria, 
Mr. Evans, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Raskin, 
 Mr. Swalwell of California, Ms. Bass, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. 
Sherrill, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Ms. Spanberger, Miss Rice of New York, 
    Mrs. Hayes, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Mr. Levin of California, Mr. 
   Morelle, and Mr. Suozzi) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Juneteenth 
     Independence Day as a Federal holiday, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Juneteenth National Independence Day 
Act''.

SEC. 2. JUNETEENTH INDEPENDENCE DAY.

    Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to Memorial Day the following:
            ``Juneteenth Independence Day.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Will DIXON, Appellant.

No. 99-3338.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 28, 2002.

Filed Aug. 28, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Will Dixon appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Southern District of Iowa after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Dixon to 27 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. His counsel has *70moved to withdraw, filing a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). For reversal, counsel argues that the district court should not have given Dixon a 4-level enhancement for possessing firearms in connection with another felony offense.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err. *See United States v. Chavarria-Cabrera,*272 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review). The undisputed evidence was that Dixon was involved in drug trafficking, items indicating drug activity were discovered at Dixon’s residence, and firearms were located in the same room as drugs and drug paraphernalia. *See United States v. Linson,*276 F.3d 1017, 1018-19 (8th Cir.2002).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues following our independent review of the record in accordance with *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
<PAGE>
                                                              Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


     Each director and/or officer of NetMed, Inc. (the "Corporation") whose
signature appears below hereby appoints David J. Richards and Kenneth B.
Leachman as the undersigned's attorneys or any of them individually as the
undersigned's attorney, to sign, in the undersigned's name and behalf and in any
and all capacities stated below, and to cause to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), the Corporation's Annual Report on
Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996, and
likewise to sign and file with the Commission any and all amendments to the Form
10-K, and the Corporation hereby also appoints such persons as its attorneys-in-
fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with like authority to sign and
file the Form 10-K and any amendments thereto granting to each such attorney-in-
fact full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that
any such attorney-in-fact or the undersigned's substitute may do by virtue
hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 19th day of March,
1997.

SIGNATURE                          TITLE


  /s/ David J. Richards            President, Secretary and Director
  -------------------------
  David J. Richards


  /s/ John P. Kennedy              Vice President-Business Development,
  -------------------------
  John P. Kennedy                  Treasurer, Assistant Secretary, and Director


  /s/ Kenneth B. Leachman          Vice President - Finance and
  -------------------------
  Kenneth B. Leachman              Chief Financial Officer


  /s/ S. Trevor Ferger             Director
  -------------------------
  S. Trevor Ferger


  /s/ Michael S. Blue              Director
  -------------------------
  Michael S. Blue


  /s/ Cecil J. Petitti             Director
  -------------------------
  Cecil J. Petitti


  /s/ Robert J. Massey             Director
  -------------------------
  Robert J. Massey


  /s/ James F. Zid                 Director
  -------------------------
  James F. Zid
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL ROMAN

- SOTO, AKA Paul Roman, AKA Paul Soto,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71230

Agency No. A200

- 963

- 647

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Paul Roman

- Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 71230

denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th

Cir. 2005)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Roman

- Soto’s motion to

reopen for his failure to establish prejudice where , even without the alleged

ineffective assistance, he would be ineligible for cancellation of removal because

he had not accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence. See Iturribarria v.

INS , 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To show a deprivation of due process

caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel’s

ineffect ive performance prejudiced h[im] .” (citation omitted))

.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in not making a finding as to whether

Roman

- Soto’s former att orney persuaded him to testify falsely, where the

determination that he was not prejudiced by any ineffective assistance was

dispositive. Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) ( the BIA is

not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the result it

reaches )

. Roman

- Soto’s contention that it is unclear whether the BIA considered

the bar complaint filed against his former attorney is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Roman

- Soto’s unexhausted contention s

regarding the quality of his former attorney’s briefing before the agency and

whether the former attorney’s performance prejudiced him with regard to being

denied voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.3 16

- 71230

2010) (t he court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented to the

agency in the alien’s proceedings).

To the extent Roman

- Soto challenges the agency ’s prior determinations on

direct appeal, this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S. C. § 1252( b)(1);

Membreno v. Gonzales , 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (the filing of a

subsequent motion does not affect the finality or reviewability of a previous order

of removal)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.