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



Exhibit 31.1 Certifications I, Dennis R. Wolters, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International
Group, 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 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:
    
    November 1, 2004
    
    By: /s/ Dennis R WoltersDennis R. WoltersPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Joseph DiPalma, Respondent, v Reina Villa et al., Appellants.

[655 NYS2d 444]

In an action to recover damages for *324personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner J.), entered August 1, 1996, which, upon the denial of their motion to set aside the jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $40,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Although the plaintiff, a police officer, was out of work for three days following his automobile accident on January 14, 1992, the record shows that he returned to light duty on January 17, 1992, and to full duty in March 1992. Further, the record is devoid of any other evidence confirming any significant curtailment of the plaintiff’s daily activities following the accident. Thus, the plaintiff failed to show that he suffered a "medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) as a result of the automobile accident *(see, Horan v Mirando,*221 AD2d 506; *De Filippo v White,*101 AD2d 801; *see also, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230; *Georgia v Ramautar,*180 AD2d 713). Since the plaintiff did not suffer a "serious injury” the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted, the plaintiff’s proof being jurisdictionally defective *(see,*Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; *Licari v Elliott, supra).*O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      55,936,000
<SECURITIES>                               218,951,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              119,727,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                16,351,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           524,593,000
<PP&E>                                     354,081,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              89,532,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,130,112,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      409,853,000
<BONDS>                                    258,854,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 278,270,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,130,112,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,283,811,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,260,589,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,808,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,980,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,566,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (5,935,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,631,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,631,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
<FN>
<F1>identifiable impairment, settlement, and other costs
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 94 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 94

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
            first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

 Mr. Brooks submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
            first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on the Judiciary (hereinafter in this resolution referred 
to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for provision of 
assistance for members of professional staff in obtaining specialized 
training under section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not 
more than $2,764,007.
    (b) Not more than $5,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for specialized training referred to in such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
#### John W. HOSFORD, Jr., Appellant, v. Nancy S. HOSFORD, Appellee.

No. K-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

May 15, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Richard A. MULLINS and Richard A. Stimson, Petitioners, v. KOFOED PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, Inc., etc., Respondent.

No. 42132.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 10, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 257 So.2d 603.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### CURRY FORD APARTMENTS, INC., and Federal Insurance Company, Appellants, v. BLACKTON, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-904.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1971.

Jules Cohen and David Kerben, Orlando, for appellants.

Harrison B. Steward, Sr., of Steward & Steward, Orlando, for Appellee-Blackton, Inc.

MAGER, Judge.

Appellants-defendants, Curry Ford Apartments, Inc., and Federal Insurance Company, appeal a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee-plaintiff, Black-ton, Inc. In entering summary judgment the trial court denied defendants’ motion to amend the jurat clause in their answers to plaintiff’s requests for admissions. The trial court determined defendants’ answers to these admissions to be “unverified” and presumably deemed as admitted matters which the defendants had specifically denied (Rule 1.370, F.R.C.P. 30 F.S.A.). It appears the trial court’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact was predicated in part upon the matters deemed admitted in the “unverified” answers.

We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion to amend their responses to cure the defective jurat. The nature of the defect was that although the defendants’ responses reflected that they were being made “under oath”, the jurat or acknowledgment before a notary, omitted references to the fact that affiant was “first duly sworn” before executing such acknowledgment. The defendants alleged in their motion to amend that this omission in the jurat was caused inadvertently, accidentally and without deliberate intention. These allegations were uncontroverted by plaintiff. The rules of discovery should be liberally interpreted to comport with the spirit of their intended function which is to arrive at the truth and to accord substantial justice over mere technical contentions. Cabot v. Clearwater Construction Company, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 662; Woods v. Stewart, 5 Cir. 1948, 171 F.2d 544; Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Florida Beverage Corporation, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 161; see also Bente v. Nelson, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 17; Southern Railway *694Company v. Wood, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 614.

We are of the opinion therefore that the defendants’ motion to amend their answers to plaintiff’s requests for admissions should be granted and such answers should be considered in determining whether the responses therein reflect the existence of any genuine issue as to any material fact in the case sub judice. In this regard see Parkhurst v. Noble, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 691; Baskin v. Griffith, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 467; Jacobi v. Claude Nolan, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 783; Strode v. Southern Steel Company, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 690; Card v. Commercial Bank at Daytona Beach, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 404.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to the trial court to take such further proceedings as are consistent with this opinion.

CROSS, C. J., and REED, J., concur.
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 96-10014 & 96-10015

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRY MARTIN CHAMBERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:92-CR-185-E)

October 29, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Martin Chambers appeals his convictions for bank robbery and using

and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. Chambers robbed a second bank

after pleading guilty to and while awaiting sentence on a prior bank robbery.
1United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004

(1985).

2

Chambers contends that the district court should have allowed the withdrawal of

his guilty pleas, claiming that they were coerced and because the government could

not prove the presence of a gun during the robbery. Chambers also contends that

the district court abused its discretion in denying his recusal motion, asserting that

the district court showed prejudice by summarily denying his motion, imputing

perjury to him, and dismissing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Chambers further claims that his offense level should have been reduced for his

minor role in the offenses and for acceptance of responsibility. Finally, Chambers

contends that the government failed to prove that the banks’ deposits were insured

by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a requirement for establishing

federal jurisdiction.

The record clearly reflects that: (1) the guilty pleas were knowingly and

voluntarily entered; (2) withdrawal was not warranted; (3) Chambers did not

explain his delay in moving to withdraw the pleas; (4) Chambers did not assert his

innocence; and (5) the performance of Chambers’ counsel did not justify

withdrawal of the pleas.1 There is nothing in the record to occasion a reasonable

person to harbor any doubt regarding the district court’s impartiality. The district
2United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 1995).

3U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.2, comment. (nn.1 & 3); §§ 

3E1.1, comment. (nn.3 & 4); United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

115 S.Ct. 455 (1994).

4United States v. Branch, 46 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 1995).

3

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chambers’ motion for recusal.2

The record contains no support for either the contention that Chambers had

a minor role in the offense or that he accepted responsibility. The district court did

not err in denying these reductions in Chambers’ offense level.3

Chambersstipulated that the banks were insured by the FDIC; no more proof

was required to establish federal jurisdiction.4

No issue raised on appeal has merit and the judgments appealed are

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000946822
<NAME>                              PREFERRED VOICE, INC.
<CURRENCY>                          US-DOLLARS


<S>
                                   <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      390,731
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            391,731
<PP&E>                                      525,079
<DEPRECIATION>                              (189,215)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,570,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,084,949
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    11,096
<OTHER-SE>                                  474,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,570,148
<SALES>                                     595,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            595,175
<CGS>                                       44,916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (300,644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             12,056
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (312,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.3)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.3)






</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1242 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1242

     To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 4-chloro-2-
                             nitroaniline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 4-chloro-2-
                             nitroaniline.

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

SECTION 1. 4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE.

    Heading 9902.29.25 of subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by this Act applies with 
respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (b) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with 
the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, any entry of an article described in 
subheading 9902.29.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the date which is 15 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry occurred on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         July 13, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria W. Votsch, 202-268-6525.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 453 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-191, CP2018-267.                

Maria W. Votsch,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-14969 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P