alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.5

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Charles E. Moran, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company;

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. Omitted;

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) [Not applicable]

c) 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

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. 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 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:  April 14, 2005

                                        /s/ Charles E. Moran
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Charles E. Moran
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                               0               1,709,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                 526,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                  19,121
<INVENTORY>                                          0               2,151,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0               4,519,010
<PP&E>                                               0               4,505,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               3,127,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0               6,244,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 525,179
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                  21,344
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0               6,244,356
<SALES>                                      1,016,845               1,986,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,016,845               1,986,383
<CGS>                                          610,781               1,195,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  304,711                 607,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,780                  24,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,018                 307,550
<INCOME-TAX>                                    63,400                 126,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             92,618                 181,450
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    92,618                 181,450
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .04                     .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04                     .08


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                   BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORPORATION
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           For the Year Ended December 31
                                         ----------------------------------
                                            1996        1995        1994
                                         ----------  ----------  ----------
     <S>                                 <C>         <C>         <C>
                                                  (dollars in thousands)
     Interest costs and amortization
      of debt costs                       $   7,868     $   725     $     -
     Interest factor related to
      noncapitalized leases (1)               4,839       2,203       1,632
                                         ----------  ----------  ----------

      Total fixed charges                 $  12,707     $ 2,928     $ 1,632
                                         ----------  ----------  ----------


     Income before income taxes           $  93,812     $71,370     $43,194
     Total fixed charges                     12,707       2,928       1,632
                                         ----------  ----------  ----------
     Total earnings before
      fixed charges                       $ 106,519     $74,298     $44,826
                                         ----------  ----------  ----------


     Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         8.4        25.4        27.5
</TABLE>





(1) Interest expense for operating leases with terms of one year or longer is
    based on an imputed interest rate for each lease.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 449 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 449

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 14, 1994.
    Resolved, That during consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union of the bill (H.R. 4506) making appropriations for energy 
and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for 
other purposes, all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure 
to comply with clause 2 or 6 or rule XXI are waived. The amendment printed in 
section 2 of this resolution may be offered only by Representative Bevill of 
Alabama or his designee, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
    Sec. 2. The amendment that may be offered only by Representative Bevill of 
Alabama or his designee is as follows:
            Page 21, line 24, strike ``$3,164,369,000'' and insert 
        ``$3,201,369,000''.
            Page 23, line 10, strike ``$1,879,204,000'' and insert 
        ``$1,842,204,000''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00207-CR

Torrance Ray Evans, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 74740, HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Torrance Ray Evans, Jr. appeals from his open plea of guilty to the felony

offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. After a hearing, the trial court assessed

punishment at 10 years’ imprisonment. The trial court certified Evans’s right of appeal.

Evans’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

a brief addressing this appeal and concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The

brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record in this cause demonstrating why there are no arguable appellate

grounds to be advanced. See id.; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State,

436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Evans, advised
him of his right to examine the appellate record in this cause and to file a pro se brief, and supplied

Evans with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Evans did not file a pro se brief and

did not request an extension of time to do so.

We have reviewed the record in this cause and find no reversible error. See Garner

v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Affirmed

Filed: November 17, 2016

Do Not Publish

2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00025- CV

Jerr y Scarbrough, Denise Steele, and Melissa Vict oria Deat on, App ellants
v. Helen P urser, Sue E. P urser a/k/a Su e E. Van Zante n, Gary W. P urser, Jr .,

Joann M. Purse r, and El izabeth H. Tip ton, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 146 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 236 ,117 -B , H ONO RAB LE ALAN MAY F IELD, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R P ER CURIAM

Appellants J err

y Scarbr oug h, Denise Steele, and Melissa Victoria Deaton filed a motion on Fe bruar

y 19, 2013, challeng ing the trial court’s order s sustaining conte s ts to their indige ncy . See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(1)
. Appellee s Helen Purser, Sue E. Purs er a/k/a Sue E. Van Z anten, Gar

y W. P u rs er , J r., J oann M. Purser, and Eliz abeth H. Tipton filed a response in oppositi on. Having revie wed the motion, the response , and the rec ord, we conclude that the trial court’s order s did not constitute an abuse of its discretion. See Kastne r v. Texas Bd. of Law Exam’ rs , No. 03-08-00515- CV, 2009 Tex. App. L EXI S 6381, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 12, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (apply ing abuse- o f-discr etion standard to revie w trial court’s order sustaining indige ncy contest). As such, we deny appellants’ motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4)
.I t is ordere d on Fe bruar y 27, 2013.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin

2
#### Glenn Jasper REDMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), S. James Miller, Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), hereby certifies that, to thebest of my knowledge:

 

1.               The Company’s Amendment No. 1 to its annualreport on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the ***“Report”***) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theCompany at the end of the periods covered by the Report and the results ofoperations of the Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
| Dated:   April  30, 2006 |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |
| /s/  S. James Miller                    |   |
| S.  James Miller, Jr.                   |
| Chief  Executive Officer                |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ImageWare Systems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### Ernest A. Cardozo, Appellant, *v.*Irving Bloomingdale, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March, 1913.)

Negligence — automobile accident — damage — usable value of car while being repaired.

Where defendant’s liability for damages to plaintiff’s automobile which collided with defendant’s automobile is conceded, plaintiff is entitled to recover as an item of damage his reasonable expenditures in hiring a ear during the time his own was being repaired, and where evidence of such expense is excluded a judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered on the direction of a verdict will be reversed.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York entered in his favor upon a verdict directed by the court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Cardozo & Nathan (Michael H. Cardozo, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Herrick C. Allen (Murray G. Jenkins, of counsel), for respondent.

*606Bijur, J.

Plaintiff recovered from defendant for damages to plaintiff’s automobile arising out of a collision with defendant’s automobile. Defendant’s liability was conceded, the question involved in this appeal being; the extent of the damage which plaintiff might recover. The amount included in'the verdict, as directed, covers merely the cost of repairs. Evidence offered by the plaintiff to prove the “ usable value ” of the car during the time that it was being repaired, *i.*e., his reasonable expenditure to replace it by hiring another car during that.period, was excluded and plaintiff excepted. Both reason and authority are, I think, in favor of including this item in the amount of plaintiff’s damage. See Wellman v. Miner, 19 Misc. Rep. 644; Murphy v. New York City R. Co., 58 id. 237; Jessup v. Platt, 76 id. 466.

The cases which respondent cites as overruling Wellman v. Miner, if they may be so considered, expressly or impliedly recognize the right to a recovery for the renting of an article to replace one regarded as a mere luxury during the time of repair, even though they do not approve of the bare principle that the usable value of an article of luxury may be recovered. See Bondy v. New York C. R. Co., 56 Misc. Rep. 602; Foley v. Forty-second St., M. & St. N. Ave. R. Co., 52 id. 183; Murphy v. New York City R. Co., *supra.*The brief of respondent’s counsel omits the language to which I refer, in its quotation from the opinion in the Bondy case, and from its collection of excerpts from the opinion in the Foley case.

Seabury and Gerard, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide event.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frank F. Khulusi, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PC Mall, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| Date:   April 29, 2011 | /s/   Frank F. Khulusi    |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Frank   F. Khulusi        |
|                        | Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
#### In re Interdiction of Mrs. Nolia E. Langenbecker, widow of Alvin P. LICHTENTAG.

No. 62002.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Robert Alexander Katz, Testamentary Executor, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Willie B. TUCKER, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Appellee.

No. 41513.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 14, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 343 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 343

  To express the sense of the House of Representatives condemning the 
   racist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic speech given by a senior 
   representative of the Nation of Islam and all manifestations and 
     expressions of hatred based on race, religion, and ethnicity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1994

Mr. Lantos (for himself, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Gingrich, 
 Ms. Norton, Mr. Porter, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Bereuter, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. 
Gilman, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Swett, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
     Houghton, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. King, Mr. Blute, Mr. Klein, and Mr. 
 Torkildsen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To express the sense of the House of Representatives condemning the 
   racist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic speech given by a senior 
   representative of the Nation of Islam and all manifestations and 
     expressions of hatred based on race, religion, and ethnicity.

Whereas the United States House of Representatives strongly opposes racism, 
        anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and all forms of ethnic or religious 
        intolerance;
Whereas the racist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic speech given by Kahlid Abdul 
        Muhammad of the Nation of Islam at Kean College on November 29, 1993, 
        incites divisiveness and violence on the basis of race, religion, and 
        ethnicity; and
Whereas Mr. Muhammad specifically justifies the slaughter of Jews during the 
        Holocaust as fully deserved; disparages the Pope in the most revolting 
        personal terms; and calls for the assassination of every white infant, 
        child, man, and woman in South Africa: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives
            (1) condemns the speech given by Kahlid Abdul Muhammad as 
        outrageous hatemongering of the most vicious and vile kind; and
            (2) condemns all manifestations and expressions of racism, 
        anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and ethnic or religious 
        intolerance.

                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 10, 2016

No. 04-16-00554-CR

Joycelynn DECHERT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5850

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This court ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court the reporter’s and 

clerk’s fees have been paid, arrangements have been made for payment of the fees, or appellant 

is entitled to an appeal without paying the fees. This court has received appellant’s response 

providing written proof the reporter’s and clerk’s fees have been paid. Therefore, this court 

ORDERS Jan Davis to file the clerk’s record no later than December 12, 2016. This court 

additionally ORDERS Dandy Middleton to file the reporter’s record December 12, 2016. 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 10th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Official Journal C 255A/14 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 255A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5914 July 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 255A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5914 July 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2016/C 255 A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/05/16 — Accreditation officers/receptionists (SC 1/SC 2) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2016/C 255 A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/05/16 — Accreditation officers/receptionists (SC 1/SC 2)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### E. E. MORGAN v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY.

No. 46097.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 1, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1971.

Cox & Dunn, Ltd., Thomas H. Watkins, Jackson, for appellant.

Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Can-nada, Jackson, Snow, Covington, Temple & Watts, Meridian, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

After affirmance and remand of this case pursuant to the opinion of this Court in Morgan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 222 So.2d 820 (Miss. 1969), Morgan refused to comply with the August 7, 1967, decree. Civil contempt proceedings were then brought to enforce the 1967 decree. Morgan was adjudged in civil contempt by reason of his “willful and contumacious failure to furnish to the complainant and to file with the Clerk of this Court the financial statements and statement in writing” required by the decree of August 7, 1967. Morgan appealed to this Court from this decree adjudging him in civil contempt.

Morgan’s argument on this appeal, that the decree is invalid in view of his claim of the privilege of remaining silent based on the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, is essentially the same as that made by him and rejected by this Court on the former appeal. We are of the opinion that the decision on the *588former appeal was correct and the decree now before the Court should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.