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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David Ayres, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Prism Software
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date") and

         c. Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 14, 2004                         /s/ David Ayres
                                             ---------------
                                             David Ayres, President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Moore, Appellant.

— Motion by the People for leave to reargue and/or renew an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered December 1, 1988, which was determined by decision and order of this court dated April 22,1991 [172 AD2d 778].

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is,

Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent that reargument is granted, and, upon reargument, the original determination made in the decision and order dated April 22, 1991, is adhered to, and the motion is otherwise denied.

Contrary to the People’s contention raised on this motion, they correctly conceded in their brief on the appeal that the defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges. The record is clear that at the completion of the selection of the 12 jurors, the defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges. After the first alternate juror was chosen, the panel from which alternate jurors had been selected was then exhausted. Rather than calling for a new panel, the parties agreed that the second alternate juror would be chosen from the jurors that had been previously peremptorily challenged. As part of this agreement, the defendant was permitted to withdraw one peremptory challenge he had already exercised, thus permitting a previously challenged juror to sit as the twelfth regular juror. The defendant was then permitted to exercise the challenge against the previously selected twelfth juror. That juror was then permitted to sit as the second alternate juror. Thus, the parties’ agreement did not alter the fact that the defendant had exhausted all his peremptory challenges and the record does not otherwise indicate that as *814a result of the agreement, the defendant regained a peremptory challenge that was not thereafter used by him.

The People’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2254

___________________________

Peter Rickmyer

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ABM Security Services, Inc., also known as American Building Maintenance

Industries, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: September 8, 2016

Filed: September 13, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Peter Rickmyer appeals following the district court’s order denying him leave

1

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his Americans with Disabilities Act

complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We find no basis for

reversal, and Mr. Rickmyer offers none. The judgment of the district court is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable JohnR. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations ofthe Honorable

Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

FAA Headquarters, Building 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 11376 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0072)

Attention: FAA UAS Intergration Office

This is a request for an amendment to the existing Section 333 Exemption No. 11376 to add 

additional aircraft to Texas UAV Professionals authorized commercial operations. On April 17, 2015, the 

FAA granted this Petition for Exemption to operate small unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose of 

conducting inspections for utility and construction industries. The Petitioner now seeks an amendment 

to its exemption authorizing the operation of additional aircraft as described in the confidential and 

proprietary operations manuals submitted in support of this amendment request. 

Additional Aircraft:

TUP X8A-2100 - Manual sent separately to 333exemptions@faa.gov

TUP’s existing safety standards, maintenance, operational parameters and procedures outlined in our 

Manual will continue for the additional aircraft.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you 

should have any questions.

Best regards, 

Curtis Youngblood

Texas UAV Professionals

5205 Sycamore Hills Court

College Station, TX 77845

979-828-4269

Curtis@texasdroneprofessionals.com
# C_2008158EN.01001202.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-155/08)

(2008/C 158/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 49 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where foreign savings balances, or income therefrom, are not disclosed to the tax authorities of a Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member State from applying a statutory rule which, in order to compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring foreign credit balances, provides for a recovery period of twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies in the case of savings balances, or income therefrom, held in that Member State, in which such effective means do exist? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 49 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where foreign savings balances, or income therefrom, are not disclosed to the tax authorities of a Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member State from applying a statutory rule which, in order to compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring foreign credit balances, provides for a recovery period of twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies in the case of savings balances, or income therefrom, held in that Member State, in which such effective means do exist?

| 2. | Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 1 whether the credit balances are held in a Member State in which banking secrecy applies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 1 whether the credit balances are held in a Member State in which banking secrecy applies?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, do Articles 49 EC and 56 EC similarly not preclude a fine for failure to disclose income or capital on which tax has been subsequently recovered from being determined as a proportion of the amount recovered over that longer period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, do Articles 49 EC and 56 EC similarly not preclude a fine for failure to disclose income or capital on which tax has been subsequently recovered from being determined as a proportion of the amount recovered over that longer period?

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        RECOGNIZING KAISER MOCK

 Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity to 
express my appreciation to Kaiser Mock for his hard work as an intern 
in my Washington, D.C. office. I recognize his efforts and 
contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.
  Kaiser is a native of Gillette, WY, and a graduate of Campbell County 
High School. He is a student at Michigan State University where he is 
majoring in Accounting. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which 
has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work 
is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months.
  I want to thank Kaiser for the dedication he has shown while working 
for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. 
I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. 
I wish him all my best on his next journey.

                          ____________________
```
Explanation of 3 year 99th Percentile Design Value for the Musser Park site in 

Muscatine, IA as Calculated with Zero Value Substitution for Flagged Data by 

Region 7 (for the 3 year periods 2008-2010 and 2009-2011)

Design Value calculation with zeros substituted for flagged data.

If zeros are substituted for flagged data, then together with the valid data (data containing 75% of daily

hourly average data), you have X valid data points, one for each day of the year of complete data. These 

X values are then arranged in order from least to greatest. To find the 99th percentile value of this 

annual data set, you use the following equation:

In the case of 365 days of valid data (i.e., days with 75% complete data for the day)

0.99 (# of days with valid data in a particular year) + 1

0.99 (365) + 1

361.35 + 1 At this point, values to the right of the decimal are truncated

362 The value in the 362nd position (when arranged from lowest to highest) is the 99th percentile 

value for that specific year (when there 365 days of valid data).

In the case of years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 the 99th percentile values are as follows;

2008 = 203.2 ppb

2009 = 0.0 ppb

2010 = 133.6 ppb

2011 = 247.9 ppb

3 year design value calculation with zero substitution for flags – 2008 through 2010

(2008 99th% + 2009 99th% + 2010 99th%) / 3

(203.2 + 0.0 + 133.6) / 3

(336.8) / 3

112.266667 As the standard is set at a whole number (75) you round to the whole number using the 

tenths position. 0.4 and below rounds down, 0.5 and above rounds up.

112 ppb 

112 ppb is the 2008-2010 99th Percentile Design Value.

3 year design value calculation with zero substitution for flags – 2009 through 2011

(2009 99th% + 2010 99th % + 2011 99th %) / 3

(0.0+ 133.6 + 247.9) / 3

(381.5) / 3

127.166666 As the standard is set at a whole number (75) you round to the whole number using the 

tenths position. 0.4 and below rounds down, 0.5 and above rounds up.

127 ppb

127 ppb is the 2009-2011 99th Percentile Design Value 

Please see attached spreadsheets for more details (2009 data is 0.0 for the entire year).
# C_2021278EN.01000601.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2021 — ABLV Bank AS (C-551/19 P), Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (C-552/19 P) v European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-551/19 P and C-552/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and a Single Resolution Fund - Article 18 - Resolution procedure - Conditions - Entity failing or likely to fail - Declaration by the European Central Bank (ECB) that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Preparatory measure - Act not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 278/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ABLV Bank AS (C-551/19 P), Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (C-552/19 P) (represented initially by O. Behrends and M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte, and subsequently by O. Behrends)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented initially by E. Koupepidou and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents, and also by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogado, then by E. Koupepidou, G. Marafioti and R. Ugena, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the European Central Bank: European Commission (represented initially by D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Dismisses as being inadmissible the claim by the European Commission that the Court should replace the reasoning set out in paragraph 34 of the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 6 May 2019, ABLV Bank v ECB (T-281/18, EU:T:2019:296), and of 6 May 2019, Bernis and Others v ECB (T-283/18, not published, EU:T:2019:295), the subject of those appeals; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses as being inadmissible the claim by the European Commission that the Court should replace the reasoning set out in paragraph 34 of the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 6 May 2019, ABLV Bank v ECB (T-281/18, EU:T:2019:296), and of 6 May 2019, Bernis and Others v ECB (T-283/18, not published, EU:T:2019:295), the subject of those appeals;

| 3. | Orders ABLV Bank AS to pay the costs in Case C-551/19 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ABLV Bank AS to pay the costs in Case C-551/19 P;

| 4. | Orders Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA to pay the costs in Case C-552/19 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA to pay the costs in Case C-552/19 P;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1612

FLORENCE NGUH NJWENG,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, 

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A29-695-737)

Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 6, 2007

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOC., P.C.,

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant

Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director,

Carol Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Florence Nguh Njweng, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)

order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision

finding her inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act

§ 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) for having falsely represented herself as a

United States citizen for the purpose of receiving a benefit under

law, and INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), for not being in possession of

a valid, unexpired visa, reentry permit, border crossing

identification card or other valid entry document. Njweng contends

she should have been given the opportunity to apply for adjustment

of status. She further contends the evidence was insufficient and

she was denied due process insofar as the Board found she was

inadmissible for having falsely claimed to be a United States

citizen. We deny the petition for review.

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary. A decision that an alien is not admissible is conclusive

unless manifestly contrary to law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(2000).

The Board found Njweng was inadmissible for two

independent reasons. Whether or not Njweng should have been

permitted under amended regulations to apply for adjustment of

status is irrelevant so long as she was inadmissible for having

falsely claimed to be a United States citizen. 
- 3 -

With respect to her due process challenge, we find she

was provided with all the process she was due and, in any event,

she failed to establish prejudice. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,

320-22 (4th Cir. 2002). We further find the record does not compel

a different result and the Board’s decision is not manifestly

contrary to the law.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
#### McKenna v. Ryan.

15794

8/22/96

Vacated and Remanded
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4349 

To require reporting by the Secretary of Education on missed opportunities, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require reporting by the Secretary of Education on missed 

opportunities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missed Opportunities 

5 in Student Debt and Possibilities Act of 2017’’. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31 of 

7 each year, the Secretary of Education shall submit to Con8 gress a report on missed opportunities for each competi9 tive or discretionary grant program administered by the 

10 Department of Education in the preceding fiscal year that 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4349 IH

1 aims to make higher education more accessible or afford2 able in the United States or ease borrowers’ student debt 

3 burdens. 

4 (b) CONTENTS.—For each grant program described 

5 in subsection (a), the report shall detail the 10 individual 

6 applications, proposals, or requests for funding that— 

7 (1) were not funded or awarded, completely or 

8 partially; but 

9 (2) showed the greatest potential, according to 

10 the selection criteria and established goals of that 

11 grant program, to— 

12 (A) make higher education more accessible 

13 or affordable; or 

14 (B) ease borrowers’ student debt burdens. 

15 (c) REPORTING DATE FLEXIBILITY.—If a law re16 quires an annual report to Congress with respect to a 

17 grant program described in subsection (a), the report on 

18 missed opportunities required under this section for that 

19 program may— 

20 (1) be included in that annual report; and 

21 (2) be submitted on or before the date that an22 nual report is due. 

23 (d) PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY.—Upon submission of a 

24 report on missed opportunities to Congress under this sec25 tion, the Secretary shall make the report available to the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4349 IH

1 public on an internet website of the Department of Edu2 cation in a manner that is user friendly and able to be 

3 searched and downloaded by users of the website. 

4 (e) TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA5 TION.—Nothing in this section authorizes the Secretary 

6 to disclose any information that is a trade secret or con7 fidential information subject to section 552(b)(4) of title 

8 5 or section 1905 of title 18. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

                              of illionis

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 18, 2012

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House 
chamber for votes yesterday. I would like the record to show that, had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 469 and 
470.

                          ____________________
```
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 600259

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### TYLER L. QUILLIN Corporal (E

- 4 ), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal f rom the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Mark D. Sameit, USMC

. For Appellant : Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton
, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 22 September 2016

_ ________________________ Before CAMPBELL , RUGH and HUTCHISON
, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the conve ning authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court