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


Certification of the Chief Executive Officer





I, Amit Etkin, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alto Neuroscience, 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(s) 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(s) 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:March 21, 2024By:/s/ Amit EtkinAmit Etkin, M.D., Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 18

- 00408

- CR

__________________

ISAAC HUDSON JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 260th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D180282

- R

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Isaac Hudson Jr. guilty of felony assault, a third

- degree felony,

and the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement and assessed a

$1,000 fine

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West 2019). 1 Hudson’s appellate

counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record,

1 We cite to the current version of the statute as amendments subsequent to Hudson’s offense do not affect our disposition.2 and he co ncludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there are no

arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High

v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Hudson of his right

to file a pro se bri ef, but we have not received a response from Hudson

.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders , 386 U.S . at 744). We have independently

examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible

error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous.

See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the

nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues

raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the

court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief

the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2

2 Hudson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3 AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on April 23, 2019 Opinion Delivered M ay 8, 2019 Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Michigan Supreme 

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 14, 2015

Order 

April 14, 2015

148079(64)

LISA TYRA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

ORGAN PROCUREMENT AGENCY OF 

MICHIGAN, d/b/a GIFT OF LIFE MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

STEVEN COHN, M.D., and WILLIAM 

BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees,

and 

DILLIP SAMARA PUNGAVAN, M.D., and JOHN 

DOE, 

Defendants.

SC: 148079

COA: 298444

Oakland CC: 2009-103111-NH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a late 

supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief submitted on April 6, 2015, is 

accepted for filing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAY DARNELL WEBB, a.k.a. Reno,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10228

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00184-KJDVCF-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 29, 2015** 

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

Ray Darnell Webb appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for coercion and enticement, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Webb’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,

FILED

APR 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Webb

the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Webb has waived his right to appeal his conviction. Because the record

discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of that waiver, we dismiss the appeal

of Webb’s conviction. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.

2009).

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief with respect to the sentence. 

We therefore affirm the sentence.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

2
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-9619-3]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice.

                    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide advice to the Administrator of EPA on environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities. It is determined that the FRRCC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. Inquiries may be directed to Alicia Kaiser, U.S. EPA, (mail code 1101-A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-7273, or                     *kaiser.alicia@epa.gov.*

Dated: January 4, 2012.

Lawrence Elworth,

Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2012-974 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ATTACHMENT I 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT MATERIAL
Docket: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071 

WA Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

Comment On: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071-0001 

Approvals and Promulgations of Implementation Plans: Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan; WA, etc. 

Document: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071-0066 

Comment on FR Doc # 2012-30090 

Submitter Information 

Organization: Law Office of Mark Sokolow 

General Comment 

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES, REGULATIONS OR AGENCY ACTIONS: 

Director Orszag of the Office of Management and Budget issued an Open Government Directive 

on December 8, 2009, which presented a 60-day timetable to “respect the presumption of 

openness by publishing information online” and Director Orszag reminded the agencies that the 

government has defined guidelines as to the objectivity of information (Orszag, 2009, p. 1-10). 

The federal guidelines focused on whether the “disseminated information is being presented in an 

accurate, clear, complete and unbiased manner. This involves whether the information is being 

presented within a proper context” (Guidelines, 2001, p. 8459). 

Is this plan similar to plans that have been implemented in other areas of the country? The City of 

Port Arthur, Texas and its industrial complex has been impacted by regional transport of 

pollutants from other areas of the country. Has the EPA factored in the impact of these new 

regulations on the economic development of the communities? 

MARK SOKOLOW 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

338 Wedgerock 

Webster, Texas 77598 

http://mtsokolow-attorney.com 

mark@mtsokolow-attorney.com 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: January 08, 2013 

Received: January 07, 2013 

Status: Posted 

Posted: January 08, 2013 

Tracking No. 1jx-82zg-njzq 

Comments Due: February 15, 2013

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\JHUNT02\Desktop\zzz_desktop files\EPA-R10-OAR-201... 1/8/2013
USDA

=o
ae United States Department of Agriculture



MAY

MAY 5

MAY 12
MAY 19
MAY 26

@ JUNE

JUNE 2
JUNE 9
JUNE 16
JUNE 23
JUNE 30

S suLy

JULY 7

JULY 14
JULY 21
JULY 28

LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE AVENUE AND 12TH STREET, SW IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT USDA.GOV/FARMERSMARKET | FOLLOW US @USDA_AMS #USDAFARMERSMKT #VEGU

ATTEND SHORT 10 MINUTE CLASSES EVERY FRIDAY FROM MAY TO
OCTOBER BETWEEN 11:30AM AND 1:00PM IN THE VEGU TENT AT THE
USDA FARMERS MARKET. THE MARKET HOSTS 30+ LOCAL

VENDORS FROM 9:00AM TO 2:00PM OFFERING A WIDE VARIETY OF
PRODUCTS.

\ aucust

SALAD GREENS AUGUST 4 WATERMELON
STRAWBERRIES AUGUST11 TOMATO

PEAS AUGUST18 PEPPERS
RADISH AUGUST 25 OKRA

@ SEPTEMBER

ASPARAGUS SEPTEMBER 1 CORN
PINEAPPLE SEPTEMBER 8 MUSHROOMS
MANGOS SEPTEMBER 15 AVOCADO
RASPBERRIES SEPTEMBER 22 PEARS
BLUEBERRIES SEPTEMBER 29 APPLES

POCTOBER

PLUMS OCTOBER 6 KALE
GREEN BEANS OCTOBER 13 KOHLRABI
CHERRIES OCTOBER 20 FENNEL
BLACKBERRIES OCTOBER 27 PUMPKINS

USDA IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER, PROVIDER AND LENDER,
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10873

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ZACHARY MARSHALL ZIBA,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 9

- 1

Before REAVLEY, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court is affirmed, supported clearly by the
law and evidence. Defendant Zachary Ziba caused the Southwest flight from Denver to Dallas to divert and land at Amarillo. He refused to stay in his seat and obey the instructions of the veteran flight attendant. He was belligerent, shouting loudly with obscenity, and said people would be sorr y and what the attendant

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 8, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10873 Document: 00513539837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016No. 15

- 10873

2 reasonably understood to be threats to the safety of the aircraft and

passengers. Defendant was charged with the crime of intimidating a flight attendant to interfere with the performance of the attendant’s duties. 49 U.S.C.A. § 4 6504. A jury found him guilty. Defendant’s defense is that he did not knowingly interfere or intend to threaten. He argues that he was not guilty of either general or specific intent

. He relies on Elo n is v. U nited States , 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) where th e Court required specific intent to transmit in interstate commerce “ any

c ommunication containing any threat ... to in jure the person of another.” The
mental state required there is not in the crime here. The Fifth Circuit has held
that Art. 46504 is a cri me of general intent where conduct can prove guilt

. U

nited States v. Hicks , 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992). This defendant was well aware of his conduct and talk, interfering with the crews and attendants and requiring the flight to be diverted.
AFFIRMED. Case: 15-10873 Document: 00513539837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2016
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (successor by conversion to Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period January 25, 2023through March 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2021, as amended and as supplemented by the2023-A Series Servicing Supplement, dated as of January 25, 2023 (as amended and supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT LLC, as titling company, NILT LLC, and the Company, asservicer, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, theCompany has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

ThisOfficer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaningsassigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of June, 2023. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum

Kevin J. Cullum

President and Chief Executive Officer
**
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases 

FY2022 - Quarter 1 

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost 

BEANS, BLACK BAG-50 KG 720 $937,717.20 $1,302.39 

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 310 $363,510.00 $1,172.61 

BEANS, SMALL RED BAG-50 KG 370 $468,440.00 $1,266.05 

CORN, YELLOW BAG-50 KG 1,580 $596,738.50 $377.68 

CORNMEAL, SOY-FORT BAG-HP-25 KG 140 $105,992.60 $757.09 

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 1,510 $1,264,943.70 $837.71 

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 420 $445,548.40 $1,060.83 

OIL, VEGETABLE BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 110 $205,271.68 $1,866.02 

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 1,790 $3,716,149.38 $2,075.95 

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 110 $112,493.00 $1,022.66 

PEAS, GREEN, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 1,130 $712,051.60 $630.13 

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 240 $134,560.80 $560.67 

RICE, 2/7 MG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 320 $209,254.40 $653.92 

RICE, 3/15 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 1,070 $584,776.40 $546.52 

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 370 $186,224.70 $503.31 

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 1,840 $1,007,469.20 $547.54 

SOYBEAN MEAL BULK 8,000 $3,408,000.00 $426.00 

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BULK 98,260 $37,289,542.40 $379.50 

Grand Total 118,290 $51,748,683.96 

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost 

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE- 50 KG 0 $0.00 $0.0000
=================================================================

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 103 SSM 6

Rosemond Barney-Yeboah,

 Respondent,

 v.

Metro-North Commuter Railroad,

 Appellant.

Submitted by Paul A. Krez, for appellant.

Submitted by Jason M. Murphy, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM: 

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed,

with costs, Supreme Court's order reinstated, and the certified

question answered in the negative. This is not the type of rare

-1-
-2- SSM No. 6

case in which the circumstantial proof presented by plaintiff "is

so convincing and the defendant's response so weak that the

inference of defendant's negligence is inescapable" (Morejon v

Rais Constr. Co., 7 NY3d 203, 209 [2006]). 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order reversed, with costs, order of Supreme Court, New York

County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the

negative, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read,

Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur. Judge Pigott

dissents and votes to affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum

at the Appellate Division (120 AD3d 1023 [2014]).

Decided April 2, 2015

-2-
Order entered October 24, 2017 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00538-CV 

DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 

D/B/A PARKLAND HEALTH & HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Appellant 

V. 

CONNIE MOON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 

OF THE ESTATE OF SANDRA MERCADO, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-10201 

ORDER 

The unopposed motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing of appellant 

Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health & Hospital System is GRANTED. It is 

ORDERED that the time for filing appellant’s motion for rehearing is extended to Monday, 

November 13, 2017. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

 JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1544. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES et al. v. DEBRA WILLIAMS et al.

A16A1545. CHATHAM ASSOCIATION FOR RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, 

INC. v. DEBRA WILLIAMS et al.

Debra Williams, as next friend of Justin Williams, filed a negligence action

against several defendants, including the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health

and Developmental Disabilities Health Services (“the Department”) and Chatham

Association for Residential Services, Inc. (“ChathamAssoc.”). The Department filed

a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, and the trial court denied the

motion. In Case Number A16A1544, the Department seeks to appeal this ruling in

accordance with Board of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (672 SE2d 471)

(2009), which held that the denial of a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity

grounds could be appealed directly as a collateral order. In Case Number A16A1545,

Chatham Assoc. has filed a cross-appeal.

In Rivera v. Washington, __ Ga. __ (Case Number S15G0887, decided March

25, 2016), the Supreme Court reversed our ruling in Canas, supra, holding that the

denial of a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds is not a collateral order

subject to direct appeal. See id. Because the Department failed to follow the

interlocutory procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), the appeal in A16A1545 is hereby

DISMISSED. See Crane v. State, 281 Ga. 635, 636-637 (641 SE2d 795) (2007).

May 04, 2016
Under these circumstances, we must also dismiss Case Number A15A1545.

“Although under OCGA § 5-6-48 (e), a cross-appeal may survive the dismissal of the

main appeal, this is true only where the cross-appeal can stand on its own merit.”

Patel v. Georgia Power Co., 234 Ga. App. 141, 142 (2) (505 SE2d 787) (1998)

(punctuation omitted). Because Chatham Assoc. has no independent basis for

establishing jurisdiction in this Court, the appeal in A16A1545 is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/04/2016