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



Exhibit 31.1
 LEGACY BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 13a  14(a) / 15d-14(a)
 I, J. Williar Dunlaevy, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Legacy Bancorp, 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 officers 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; andc)
    
    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; andb)
    
    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:
July 7, 2006
    
    /s/ J. Williar DunlaevyJ. Williar DunlaevyChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
 22
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**68 KA 14-01980** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY C. DEPETRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MUSCATO, DIMILLO & VONA, LLP, LOCKPORT (GEORGE V.C. MUSCATO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J.), rendered June 30, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and criminal trespass in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Although the record establishes that defendant had attempted to commit suicide while incarcerated three weeks before the plea, that he was taking prescribed antidepressants, and that he was emotionally upset during the plea proceedings, we reject his contention that his mental health condition prevented him from understanding the proceedings and entering a knowing and voluntary plea ( see People v Wilson

, 117 AD3d 1476, 1477; see also People v Alexander

, 97 NY2d 482, 485-486). In denying the motion, the court acknowledged that defendant was depressed when he entered the plea, in part because he was placed in isolation after allegedly plotting three murders from the jail, but it nevertheless determined that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary. There is no basis to disturb that determination. We conclude that the court “conducted an inquiry that ‘was sufficient to ensure that the plea was voluntary’ ” ( People v Zuliani , 68 AD3d 1731, 1732, lv denied 14 NY3d 894). The record establishes that defendant understood the proceedings; that he declined the court’s offer to change any of his responses; that his medication did not affect his**-2- 68 KA 14-01980** 

ability to understand the proceedings; and that he admitted the factual basis for each count of the indictment before pleading guilty. Although defendant initially denied that he attempted to kill the victim, after he consulted with counsel, he admitted that he did so. Thus, the record belies defendant’s contention that he was confused and did not understand the consequences of the plea ( see People v Williams

, 103 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv denied 21 NY3d 915).

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
|   | (1) |   | The      Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period      ended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      as amended; and |   |
|--------|-----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2) |   | The      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                              |                                                                                                  |                            |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                              | VALLEY      FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.(Registrant)                                            |
|                              |                                                                                                  |                            |
| Date: November 14, 2008 | By:                                                                                         | /s/ Louis J.      Brothers |
|                              | Louis J.      Brothers                                                                                |
|                              | President,      Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer)(Principal      Accounting Officer) |

----
# L_2006040EN.01000901.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 40/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 40/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 243/2006

of 10 February 2006

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 February 2006 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of March 2006 for 7 706,862 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2186/2005 (OJ L 347, 30.12.2005, p. 74).

2

---
# L_2006256EN.01001601.xml

| 20.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 256/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 15 September 2006

appointing a Lithuanian member of the Committee of the Regions

(2006/629/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Lithuanian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010.

| (2) | A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Ms Virginija LUKOŠIENĖ, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Ms Virginija LUKOŠIENĖ,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Stasė SKUTULIENĖ, member of Šilutė District Municipality Council is hereby appointed a member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Ms Virginija LUKOŠIENĖ for the remainder of her term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2006.

For the Council

The President

E. TUOMIOJA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135967 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135967 

 COA: 272988 

Wayne CC: 06-001737-01

JONATHON ARTURO CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Mr. Parsons:

You have been given the unenviable job of breaking the back of greed of Texas oilmen who have run rough shod over 

the unsophisticated mineral owner in Texas.

In the good ole days of doing business in Texas with a handshake are gone. People are awakening to a world of 

pollution by the oil industry during a time when they are also facing job losses and less disposable income. 

Consequently, people signed leases thinking they were increasing their incomes without being fully aware of the 

costs to their health and welfare by signing these leases.

I was someone who organized my neighborhood to withhold their signatures from the Standard 88 lease presented 

our neighborhood. A self described cynic, I knew it would be unwise to sign a document giving the gas industry a 

blank check to pollute our neighborhood with noise, lights, truck traffic, water pollution and air pollution. While not 

all of my neighbors withheld their need for greed, we were successful in holding a majority of the neighborhood from 

signing. To say the least, this has painted a bulls eye on my back by the industry angry that I was able to organize 

my neighbors to keep them out of our neighborhood which is a prime area in the middle of their resource play here in 

a densely urban area of Fort Worth.

However, this does not mean our neighborhood is not affected by the air and water pollution of our community. 

Now it is your job to put your boot on the neck of Chesapeake and other drillers to stop the rape of our environment. 

I moved away from Texas in 1991 but chose to return in 1994. I love Texans but I hate the politics of Texas. It will 

take the federal government to drag Texas into the modern era of concern for our environment. Texas is a beautiful 

state but its natural resources are not infinite. Please use all the powers within your tool kit to protect the citizens of 

this beautiful state and this once beautiful city, Fort Worth.

Gratefully,

Linda LaBeau, RN 

LaBeau Facilitation, Mediation & Consulting 

5312 Benbridge Drive 

Fort Worth, Texas 76107 

817.377.8172 (Office/Home) 

817.377.8164 (Fax) 

817.602.5446 (Cell) 

 

TEXAS - GREED IS NOT GOOD

linda labeau 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

08/01/2010 12:18 PM 

Show Details 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7199.h... 8/9/2010
#### R & J Yorek, Inc., Appellant, v MCL Construction, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to set aside two mortgages held by the defendants, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered April 6, 1989, as denied its motion for partial summary judgment on the first, second and third causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff contracted with the defendant MCL Construction, Inc. (hereinafter MCL) in February 1984 to construct an addition to its service station. The contract was subsequently modified to provide for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new building. As security for the costs of construction, the plaintiff delivered two mortgages on the subject property to MCL. Following demolition of the building, a dispute developed between the parties, and in August 1984 the plaintiff directed MCL not to perform further work under the contracts. The plaintiff then commenced this action against the defendants to set aside the mortgages and to recover damages based on breach of contract and fraud.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court erred in *532denying its motion for summary judgment on the first three causes of action in the complaint sounding in breach of contract and fraud. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that there was no consideration for the mortgages because the new building was never constructed and that the mortgages should be set aside because MCL was not a lawful corporate entity at the time of the conveyances.

We conclude that the court properly denied the plaintiffs motion as it is apparent from the parties’ affidavits that the facts surrounding the negotiation of the contracts and termination of work on the construction project are highly disputed. Since material issues of fact exist, the plaintiff has failed to establish that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). Furthermore, the proof submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that MCL was not a lawful corporate entity at the time the mortgages were conveyed, and we decline to consider matters in the parties’ briefs which are *de hors*the record on appeal. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1913 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1913

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on resin cement based on 
                 calcium carbonate and silicone resins.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on resin cement based on 
                 calcium carbonate and silicone resins.

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

SECTION 1. RESIN CEMENT BASED ON CALCIUM CARBONATE AND SILICONE RESINS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.62 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to resin cement based on 
calcium carbonate and silicone resins) is amended by striking the date 
in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 198 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to waive non-Federal share requirements for certain transportation programs and activities through September 30, 2009. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to waive nonFederal share requirements for certain transportation 

programs and activities through September 30, 2009. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NON-FEDERAL SHARE REQUIREMENTS APPLI4 CABLE TO TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

5 AND ACTIVITIES. 

6 (a) DEFINITION OF COVERED TRANSPORTATION

7 PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY.—In this section, the term ‘‘cov8 ered transportation program or activity’’ means a program 

9 or activity for which funds are authorized under the Safe, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 198 IS

1 Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

2 Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109–59) or an 

3 amendment made by that Act. 

4 (b) TEMPORARY WAIVER.—For the period specified 

5 in subsection (c), the Secretary of Transportation shall 

6 waive any requirement that would otherwise require a 

7 State or local government to contribute non-Federal funds 

8 toward the cost of a covered transportation program or 

9 activity. 

10 (c) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (b) shall apply with 

11 respect to a covered transportation program or activity 

12 carried out by a State or local government during the pe13 riod beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 

14 ending on September 30, 2009. 

15 (d) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this section 

16 prohibits a State or local government from contributing 

17 non-Federal funds toward the cost of a covered transpor18 tation program or activity. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
# Fourth **C ourt**  **of A**  **ppeals San Antonio,**  **Texas** April 20, 2022 No. 04-22-00125- CV IN TH E INTEREST OF S .C . and M.E.B., Children, From t he 150th Judi cia l District Court , B exar County, Texas

Trial C ourt N o. 2019PA01853 Honorable R osie A lvarado, Judge P residing



### O R D E R Appellant Dad ’s b rief is due on April 20, 2022. See T EX . R
. A PP . P. 38.6(a). On th e due da te, D ad moved f

or a t wenty- day e xtension o f time to f ile hi s brief

. Appe llant Dad ’s motion is granted. His br ief is due on May 10, 2022.

_______________________ __________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of April, 2022.

__________________ _________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

**OF      THE PRESIDENT**

|   | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended                June 30,                2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|