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

CERTIFICATION

I, David I. Bruce, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EP MedSystems, 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants 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 this annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to 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, 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 registrants 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 30, 2007 |  | /s/    DAVID I.
BRUCE                
|                     |  | David I. Bruce                       
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report.
  /s/ Robert C. SepuchaRobert C. SepuchaChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      22,333,227
<SECURITIES>                                19,019,813
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,062,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,007,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,076,993
<PP&E>                                       2,318,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                 905,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,955,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,066,530
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,935
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,881,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,995,734
<SALES>                                      9,370,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,370,822
<CGS>                                        6,578,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,024,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,406,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,407,946)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing Financial
Statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I,
Michael G. Carlton, the Chief Executive Officer of Crescent Financial
Corporation, in compliance with 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, (i) the Form
10-Q filed by Crescent Financial Corporation (the "Issuer") for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained
in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the
periods presented therein.





Date:
      May 14, 2009
              
              /s/
      Michael G. CarltonMichael
      G. CarltonPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                               AMENDMENT NO. FOUR
                             POST PROPERTIES, INC.
                              EMPLOYEE STOCK PLAN




         Pursuant to the power reserved in section 17 of the Post Properties,
Inc. Employee Stock Plan ("Plan"), the first sentence of Section 7.1, Committee
Action, is hereby amended to read as follows:


         "The Committee acting in its absolute discretion shall
         have the right to grant Options to Key Employees under
         this Plan from time to time to purchase shares of Stock;
         provided, however, that the Committee shall not have the
         right to grant new Options in exchange for the cancellation
         of outstanding Options which have a higher Option Price than
         the new Options and, further, no grants of ISOs shall be
         made to Key Employees who are not employed by Post or a
         Subsidiary, and no Option or Options, individually or
         collectively, shall be granted to any Key Employee in any
         calendar year to purchase more than 50,000 shares of Stock."

         This Amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of the date
that the Board of Directors of Post Properties, Inc. adopted this Amendment to
the Plan.

                           POST PROPERTIES, INC.



                           BY: /s/ Sherry W. Cohen
                              ---------------------------------------
                           TITLE: Senior Vice President and Secretary
                                 ------------------------------------
                           DATE: October 30, 1997
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2126

To temporarily waive the enrollment composition rule under the medicaid

program for certain health maintenance organizations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. MACK) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To temporarily waive the enrollment composition rule under

the medicaid program for certain health maintenance

organizations.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF 75/25 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT

4 RULE FOR CERTAIN MANAGED CARE ORGANI5 ZATIONS.

6 The requirement of section 1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) of the

7 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(m)(2)(A)(ii)) is

8 waived with respect to facilities of HealthCare USA, Inc.

9 and Ultramedix Health Care Systems Inc. operating in
2

•S 2126 IS

1 Florida for contract periods beginning on July 1, 1996,

2 and ending on June 30, 1998.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 (Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 3, 2017



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Nicole Schaltenbrand             
|Nicole Schaltenbrand                 
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
II

Calendar No. 481

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1826

[Report No. 104–306]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel COURIER

SERVICE.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 3, 1996

Mr. LOTT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JUNE 27, 1996

Reported by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel COURIER SERVICE.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), as applica-
2

S 1826 RS

1 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

2 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

3 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

4 coastwise trade for the vessel COURIER SERVICE

5 (Vanuatu official number 688).

Calendar No. 481

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1826

[Report No. 104–306]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

SERVICE.wise trade endorsement for the vessel COURIERissue a certificate of documentation and coastJUNE 27, 1996

Reported without amendment
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

HAINES CITY HMA, INC., HEART OF FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL

CENTER and VANITSHA WINSTON
, Appellant s ,

v.

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 220

[ July 21, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Regi n ald Roy Corlew , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 502019AP000161 and 502012SC022712

.

Chad A. Barr of Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for appellants.

Anthony J. Parrino and Jennifer W. Opiola of Reynolds Parrino & Shadwick, P.A., St. Petersburg, and S u nia Yvette Marsh of Law Office of Christina M. Sanabria, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Bartow HMA, Inc. v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co. , No. 4D21

- 167 (Fla. 4th DCA July 14 , 2021).

M AY
, L EVINE and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10211 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

HOWARD LEE CARPENTER,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CV-656-A (4:92-CR-106-A)

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Howard Lee Carpenter asserts that the Northern District of

Texas lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence because the matter

was improperly retransferred from the Middle District of

Tennessee. The argument is frivolous. The superseding

information, to which Carpenter pleaded guilty, specifically

states that the alleged criminal conduct forming the basis of

this matter occurred within the Northern District of Texas and

elsewhere. Thus, jurisdiction, including venue, was proper in

the Northern District of Texas. See United States v. Zabaneh,
No. 95-10211

-2-

837 F.2d 1249, 1256 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. 

Carpenter also alleges that counsel was ineffective for

failing to make the jurisdictional objection and for failing to

object to the district court's reliance on the version of the

Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. 

In order to demonstrate ineffectiveness of counsel,

Carpenter must establish that counsel's performance fell below an

objective standard of reasonable competence and that he was

prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance. Lockhart v.

Fretwell, 113 S. Ct. 838, 842 (1993). 

As discussed above, jurisdiction was proper. Thus, counsel

was not deficient for failing to make a futile objection. See

McCoy v. Lynaugh, 874 F.2d 954, 963 (5th Cir. 1989).

Carpenter's ineffective-assistance claim regarding

sentencing fairs no better. 

Carpenter's argument that the 1988 version of § 2F1.1(b)(1)

differs substantially from the 1993 version of the same section,

even if accurate, is irrelevant. His sentence was calculated

under § 2S1.1, not § 2F1.1. Counsel had no basis upon which to

predicate an objection regarding the district court's reliance on

the 1993 version of § 2F1.1 of the guidelines and was therefore

not deficient for failing to make a futile objection. See McCoy,

874 F.2d at 963. 

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1882 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1882

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to include medical 
 foods as a specific item for which coverage may be provided under the 
               Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 1996

  Mr. DeWine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
            referred to the Committee on Government Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to include medical 
 foods as a specific item for which coverage may be provided under the 
               Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICAL FOODS.

    Section 8904(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(E) by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``, including with respect to medical foods (as 
        defined by section 5(b)(3) of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 
        360ee(b)(3))).''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(F) by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``, including medical foods (as defined by 
        section 5(b)(3) of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 
        360ee(b)(3))).''.
                                 <all>
```
(ARTHUR ANDERSEN LETTERHEAD)


March 27, 1997                                        Arthur Andersen LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission                    101 Eisenhower Parkway
Mail Stop 9-5                                         Roseland, NJ 07068-1099
450 Fifth Street, N.W.                                201-403-6100
Washington, D.C. 20549


Dear Sirs/Madams:

We have read the  statements  made by SVB  Financial  Services,  Inc.,  which we
understand will be filed with the Commission on March 31, 1997, pursuant to Item
9 of Form 10-K. We agree with the  statements  concerning  our firm in such Form
10-K.




Very truly yours,


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

PB

Copy to:
Mr. Keith B. McCarthy
Executive Vice President
SVB Financial Services, Inc.
103 West End Avenue
Somerville, New Jersey  08876
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2112

ANTHONY D. FIGUEROA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-2441-DKC)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony D. Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se. Kaye A. Allison, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion requesting return of certain properties allegedly forfeited

by the United States. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Figueroa v. United

States, No. CA-95-2441-DKC (D. Md. July 17, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Phillip W. BERMAN, Timothy J. Gregory, Laurence A. Lasky, Gerald R. Nakamura, Eric J. Patzer, John S. Patton, and Ellen S. Vitetta, Appellants, v. Gerard M. HOUSEY, Appellee.

No. 01-1311.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 24, 2002.

ORDER

A combined petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc having been filed by the APPELLANTS, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the APPELLEE, and the petition for rehearing having been referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response having been referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service,

UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is

ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and it is further

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

The mandate of the court will issue on July 31, 2002.
1101 17 th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326

- 5154 Fax (202) 898

- 4810 November 2 , 2015

Ms. Susan Kurland Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation

12 00 New Jersey Avenue, S E Washington, D.C. 20590

Re : American Airlines Response

-- Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3491

Dear M s

. Kurland :

The Supplemental Comments of JetBlue raise no new substantive points. Rather, they

are filled with irrelevant arguments and specious assertions

. A s such , A merican will not reply to
JetBlue

.

American is full y complian t with its obligation s under the Set tlement Agreement with the Department of Justice ; and all comment periods established by the FAA in the Federal Register have expired.

It is time for DOT/FAA to restore nonstop LAN

- DCA service by granting American’s application.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________ _______

Howard Kass Abigail Donovan
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Shon WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4428.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ethan Ainsworth Ontjes, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Shon Williams, who pled guilty to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000), and being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), appeals from his conviction and 110-month sentence. In a *684brief filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams’ attorney states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenges the constitutionality of § 841 in the wake of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), nevertheless. Williams was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but failed to do so.

This Court and other courts of appeals have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of § 841 following *Apprendi. See, e.g., United States v. McAllister,*272 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir.2001). Hence, Williams’ sole argument on appeal is meritless.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*