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



CERTIFICATION

I, Marc T. Giles, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, 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.   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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function(s)):

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:   December 10, 2004

| | /s/ Marc T. Giles                     | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | Marc T. Giles
Chief Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                           233,689
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 233,689
<PP&E>                                                           137,038
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    63,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   313,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          1,547,386
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                          26,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (1,260,215)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  (1,233,920)
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       0
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 840,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (324,886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (327,286)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (327,286)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.01)



</TABLE>
#### Patricia B. HORNER, Appellant, v. Duke C. HORNER, Appellee.

No. 68-548.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1969.

*792Pat Whitaker and Ralph Steinberg, Tampa, for appellant.

William B. Goodson, of Whitaker, Good-son & Garcia, Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, Patricia B. Horner, brings this appeal from a final order entered in the lower court on appellee’s petition to modify the final decree of divorce between appellant-wife and appellee-husband, which order relieved the appellee-husband from having to make any future alimony payments to the appellant.

The appellant filed her response to ap-pellee’s petition, which response, among other things, challenged the sufficiency of the allegations contained in appellee’s petition for modification. At the final hearing, the appellant admitted the allegations contained in appellee’s petition. The main thrust of said petition is based on the allegations that the appellant uses her alimony payments for alcohol and drugs and has been arrested at least fifty or more times and confined in jail on many or most of those occasions. In his petition ap-pellee-husband did not allege his inability to continue to make said payments, nor the lack of need on the part of appellant.

In Phillippi v. Phillippi, 148 Fla. 393, 4 So.2d 465 (1941), the Supreme Court of Florida had before it a case where the appellant-husband sought to modify a final decree of divorce by reducing alimony payments on the grounds that the appellee-wife was living in extravagance, played roulette and squandered her money in gambling. The lower court had dismissed the appellant-husband’s bill and he appealed. In affirming, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Adams, stated at pages 466 and 467:

> “In Florida our courts are only authorized to grant a divorce absolute. We find the weight of authority supports what we think is the better rule, that the extravagance of the divorced wife will not afford the husband grounds for relief from the alimony decree. 19 C.J. 277; 1 R.C.L. 949; Cole v. Cole, 142 Ill. 19, 31 N.E. 109, 19 L.R.A. 811, 34 Am.St.Rep. 56.”

We can see no difference between a wife squandering her money on gambling or on liquor.

It is noted that the Phillippi case, supra, was a four to three decision and none of the Justices who participated in that case are now actively serving on the Supreme Court of Florida.

While we may not be completely in accord with the holding of the Phillippi case, we feel bound by it until such time as the Florida Supreme Court may see fit to recede from it.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE, J., concurs.

MANN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

MANN, Judge

(concurring specially).

I concur on the assumption that the able trial judge will now follow his earlier inclination to insure that the appellant’s competency is inquired into and, if necessary, a guardian is appointed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 31627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 222, Inmarsat AMS(R)S.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 222, Inmarsat AMS(R)S.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
thirteenth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 222, Inmarsat AMS(R)S

DATES: The meeting will be held June 10-11 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton San Diego Resort & 
Spa, 1775 East Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This meeting will be held in 
conjunction with the 2013 Inmarsat Aero Conference. Participants who 
will be traveling to the meeting should contact Alan Schuster-Bruce, 
alan.schuster-bruce@inmarsat.com for information about accommodation. 
In addition, Jennifer Iversen may also be contacted directly at email: 
jiversen@rtca.org or by The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., 
Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-0662/
(202) 833-9339, fax (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 222. The agenda will 
include the following:

June 10-11

     Greetings & Attendance.
     Review summary of February 2103 meeting (12th Plenary)
     Report on the status of the DO-343 MASPS approval process
     The primary focus of the meeting will be working sessions 
dedicated to advancing the DO-262 generic and SwiftBroadband-specific 
material. Attendees should be prepared to contribute to this effort.
     Other items as appropriate.
     Review action items from 11th and 12th Plenary.
     Schedule 14th Plenary.
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2013.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal 
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-12464 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# C_2022418EN.01001002.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DD

(Case C-347/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8(1) - Right of an accused person to be present at the trial - Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the accused person - Possibility of remedying the infringement of a right at a later stage in the proceedings - Additional examination of the same witness - Directive 2013/48/EU - Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings - Article 3(1) - Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the lawyer of the accused person)

(2022/C 418/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

DD

Intervening party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings and Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty,

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in order to ensure that the right of the accused person to be present at his or her trial and his or her right of access to a lawyer are safeguarded, the national court carries out an additional examination of an incriminating witness since, for reasons beyond their control, the accused person and his or her lawyer could not be present at the previous examination of that witness, it is sufficient that the accused person and his or her lawyer be able freely to question that witness, providing, prior to that additional examination, the accused person and his or her lawyer were sent a copy of the minutes of the previous examination of that witness. In those circumstances, it is not necessary to repeat in its entirety, thereby invalidating the procedural steps taken during that examination, the examination which took place in the absence of the accused person and his or her lawyer.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 19, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City*                     (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

                    1.                     *Tyler J. Bachman, Shawnee, Kansas;*                     to acquire voting shares of First Centralia Bancshares, Inc., and to become a member of the Bachman family group which controls First Centralia Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly controls First Heritage Bank, both in Centralia, Kansas.                

      ( print page 31391)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 29, 2018.

Yao-Chin Chao,

Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-14431 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
#### Charles Allen GRISHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 31, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

by the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of LION, Inc., a Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of David Stedman, Interim Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350), that to his knowledge:

|(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.
|   



|INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                               
|/s/ David Stedman               |  | /s/ Steve Thomson      
|David Stedman                   |  | Steve Thomson          
|                                |  |                        
|March 31, 2008                  |  | March 31, 2008         



---
#### PEOPLES GAS SYSTEM, INC., Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 29, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1971.

*548McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis and Dennis G. King, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Murray A. Greenberg, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., CHARLES CARROLL, J., and ADAMS, ALTO, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Peoples Gas System, Inc. filed an action in the circuit court against Dade County and the City of North Miami Beach and their taxing officials, joining as a defendant the comptroller of the State of Florida, claiming illegality of an assessment on certain of its personal property on the ground of overevaluation thereof.

Appellant owns a plant previously used by it for production and supply to its customers of manufactured gas. Appellant now supplies its customers with natural gas through other facilities. The former property or plant is maintained and kept in operating order as a back-up for the natural gas facility, in the event of failure of the latter. The dispute relative to the assessment arises from the fact that the assessor, for ad valorem taxation purposes for certain years involved, valued the standby personal property as it would have been valued if the facility had been an operating plant, whereas the appellant contended the property should not be so valued because no use is made thereof, although conceding it is held ready and adequate for use by the appellant if and when needed.

The trial court held that the personal property assessments for the two years involved in the appellant’s action were proper, and required payment of a balance of taxes due thereunder which had been withheld. Upon considering the record and briefs we find no reversible error. We are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that the basis of valuation declared by the assessor with reference to the property in question for the years involved was not in conformity to the statutory authority therefor as outlined in § 193.011 applied in connection with § 366.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE                                                MIRAGE RESORTS, INCORPORATED
OF COMMON STOCK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Three Months                  Six Months
                                                       --------------------------    --------------------------
For the periods ended June 30                             1997           1996           1997           1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Weighted-average shares outstanding                    178,667,717    184,414,321    178,560,758    184,109,909
Common stock equivalents                                11,723,362     13,019,616     11,900,615     12,453,962
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average shares outstanding and
  common stock equivalents used in the
  computation of primary earnings per share            190,391,079    197,433,937    190,461,373    196,563,871
Additional common stock equivalents for
  fully diluted calculation                              2,337,805      1,937,663      2,160,552      2,503,317
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total shares outstanding assuming full dilution        192,728,884    199,371,600    192,621,925    199,067,188
===============================================================================================================

Net income                                            $ 48,901,000   $ 40,599,000   $103,365,000   $105,186,000
Primary earnings per share                            $       0.26   $       0.21   $       0.54   $       0.54
Fully diluted earnings per share                      $       0.25   $       0.20   $       0.54   $       0.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>