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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,S. James Miller, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof ImageWare Systems, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         [Reserved]

 

(c)          evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)         disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Dated: | May 22,  2006 |                     | /s/  S. James Miller |
|--------|--------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|
|   |               | S.  James Miller         |
|   |               | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEndocardial Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three monthperiod ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Robert Paulson, Jr., ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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 Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/  J. Robert Paulson, Jr. |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | J. Robert Paulson, Jr.      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer     |
|   | November 9 , 2004           |

 

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 15, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128356 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128356 

 COA: 259678 

Gogebic CC: 03-000168-FH 

GRANT MONROE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

d1208 

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. 

December 15, 2005 

Clerk
1 

### Njo, Heather
From: Schaeffer, John Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 2:04 PM To: Bryant Hinnant Cc: Njo, Heather; Lewis, Paul; Mattheisen, Mike Subject: RE: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 -- Charkit Chemica l request for extension Attachments: 127-68-4 HPV3 Letter to Charkit_Extension Approval Dec 23 2013.pdf

Bryant ­­ The letter approving your extension request has bee n mailed. For your convenience I am also sending you the attached pdf copy. Best regards,
John John Schaeffer Senior Biologist USEPA/OPPT/CCD/CITB 1201 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 Mail Code: 7405M Phone: 202­564­8173 ­­­­­Original Message­­­­­ From: Bryant Hinnant [ mailto:BHinnant@charkit.com ] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:06 PM To: Schaeffer, John Subject: Docket EPA­HQ­OPPT­2009­0112 ­­ Charkit Ch emical request for extension Mr. Schaeffer, pursuant to our telephone conversati on on Wednesday, I contacted Mr. Vanderlip at Tiarco Chemical Company to discuss sharing theirtesting costs incurred in meeting the requirements of the captioned docket. Mr. Vanderli p indicated he understood our request but that he must present the issue to his senior manage ment, some of whom are not available over the holidays. For that reason we are requesting an extension of the requirement to submit either a letter of intent to test or an exemption a pplication until January 26, 2014. Please contact me if there is any concern regardingour request. I have also sent the original of this document via FedEx to your attenti on. Sincerely, Bryant Hinnant Charkit Chemical Corporation 203­299­3220 www.charkit.com
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for theNational Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for theyear ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to theactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
#### William M. Feeney et al., Appellants, v Consolidated Rail Corporation, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Peavey Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent and Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Ostrowski, J. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Erie *1005County, Ostrowski, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29170]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Meeting; Seminar: Research to Develop an Artificial 
Retina

November 22, 2000.
    Name: Seminar: ``RESEARCH TO DEVELOP AN ARTIFICIAL RETINA''.
    Date and Time: November 22, 2000; 8:30 am-12 noon.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
110, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Gilbert Devey, Program Director, biomedical 
Engineering and Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities, Division of 
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 2223, Telephone: (703) 292-8320.
    Purpose of Meeting: The broad purpose of the meeting is to brief 
NSF management and program officers on federal agency research project 
support, other worldwide R&D directed to the development of a chronic 
retinal prosthesis, and to indicate the context in which NSF provides 
support for the research.

Agenda

8:30 a.m.--Registration
9:00 a.m.--Welcome
9:15 a.m.--Presentation
10:15 a.m.--Break
10:30 a.m.--Discussion
11:30 a.m.--Open Discussion
11:45 a.m.--Wrap-Up

    Dated: November 8, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-29170 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Velasquez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered on October 28, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and burglary in the third degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years on the first charge and 1 to 3 years on the second charge, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
#### HELTSLEY v. HELTSLEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 19, 1951.

Hubert Meredith, Owensboro, for appellant.

T. O. Jones,- Greenville, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

After sixteen years of marriage and the birth of two children, a bo.y now eight and a girl now five years of age, appellant obtained a divorce from her husband, the appellee. In the judgment of divorce the chancellor awarded the appellant $20 a month .alimony, $20 additional .when the children were in her actual custody, but awarded the custody of the children for alternating two-month periods, first to their mother and then to their father. On .this-appeal the appellant asks for full custody o,f the children and for an increáse in the allowance for both alimony and maintenance of the children.

The earnings of the appellee ar.e variously estimated to range from $1,100 to $2,000 a year. According to the appellee his earnings amount .to an average o.f $92. a month out of which he must pay his taxes and living expenses. The couple had acquired some land during their marriage, and this, was sold for $1,700 and the proceeds of the sale divided equally between them. While the allowance is small, the appellee’s income also is small.

Ordinarily, it is considered better foi young children to have one haven which they consider home, and not be switched back and forth in such a way that they develop a sense of insecurity. And, ordinarily, such young children should be with the mother. In the instant case, the appellant and her mother live in the same small community and within walking distance for the children of the appellee’s home.' So far as we can discover from the record both homes are suitable for the rearing of the children.

The chancellor, we are sure, considered the welfare of the children to be his principal aim in apportioning their custody as he did. Apparently, the parties to this litigation can agree to nothing at this time, not even the right of the father to see and visit his children. It may be well to point out *974here that the divorce was granted more than a year after the last proof was taken, and that the' testimony supporting it is- none too convincing.

Since questions involving custody of the children, KRS 403.070, the amount of alimony and of maintenance, KRS 403.060, are always open to modification in' the trial court, we are reluctant to modify a decisión of á chancellor in such matters except where his determinations impress us with being ' obviously unjust and erroneous. We have no such impression here. The chancellor usually knows the parties and the circumstances better than we can discern them from the typewritten record of the' testimony. And also, in considering the welfare of the children, it is conceivable that he is estimating the chances of a reconciliation between their parents and the restoration: of their own-home and what 'course he should pursue in order to facilitate it.

The judgment of the chancellor is affirmed.
#### McGEE v. STATE.

No. 22489.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 28, 1943.

A. K. Pattillo, of Houston, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. ■

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a case of robbery by assault; the punishment, fifteen years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

Shirley Burgins, James Jones, and the appellant were jointly indicted and tried for the robbery of Lee Harris. Only the appellant has appealed from the conviction.

No bills of exception accompany the record. The injured party positively identified appellant as one of four men who robbed him of $55, as alleged in the indictment.

The evidence supports the jury’s conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court • of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Case 4:22-cr-00150-O Document 22 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
Case 4:22-cr-00150-O Document 22 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28
IR-4 Project Headquarters 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

500 College Road East, Suite 201W 

Princeton, NJ 08540 

732.932.9575 fax: 609-514-2612 

www.ir4.rutgers.edu 

SUBJECT: Statement ofNo CBI in Crop Group Petitions 

FROM: Bill Barney, Crop Grouping Manager, IR-4 Project 

To: Laura Nallen, Biologist, Minor Use Team 

Registration Division (7 5 05P) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Date: July 16, 2014 

CC: Barbara Madden (EPA), Dan Kunkel (IR-4), Jerry Baron (IR-4) 

Dear Ms. Nallen: 

Per your request I can confirm that the following Crop Grouping petitions do not contain any 

confidential business information (CBI) that would prevent them from being loaded to the public 

docket: 

1. Volume 1& 2: CROP GROUPING PETITION- BRASSICA HEAD AND STEM VEGETABLES, 

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO 40 CFR 180.41 (c) ( 5); (Broccoli; Brussels Sprouts; Cabbage, 

Head; Cabbage, Chinese (napa); Cauliflower) 

2. Volumes 1, 2 & 3: CROP GROUPING PETITION- LEAFY VEGETABLES, TECHNICAL 

AMENDMENT (ADDITION) TO 40 CFR 180.41 (c) AND 180.1 (g) 

3. Volumes 1 &2: CROP GROUPING PETITION- STALK, STEM AND LEAFY PETIOLE 

VEGETABLE, TECHNICAL AMENDMENT (ADDITION) TO 40 CFR 180.41 (c) 

4. Volumes 1 & 2: CROP GROUPING PETITION- TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL FRUIT, 

EDIBLE PEEL, TECHNICAL AMENDMENT (ADDITION) TO 40 CFR 180.41 (c) AND 180.1 (h) 

5. Volumes 1 & 2: CROP GROUPING PETITION- TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL FRUIT, 

INEDIBLE PEEL, TECHNICAL AMENDMENT (ADDITION) TO 40 CFR 180.41 (c) AND 180.1 (g) 

Sincerely, 

Bill 

LJ~~ 

Barney ~ 

Crop Grouping Manger 

IR -4 Project 

Major funding for IR-4 is provided by Special Research Grants and Hatch Act Funds from USDA-CSREES, 

in cooperation with the State Agricultural Experimental Stations and USDA -ARS. 

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY 

UTGERS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-430-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND

DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Amended

Answer and Counterclaim (doc. 108), which was filed by defendants

Association of Professional Flight Attendants ("APFA"), Julie Hedrick,

and Eric Harris (collectively, "Defendants"). After review of the

motion, the related briefs, and the applicable law, the Court is not

persuaded, as Plaintiff contends, that the amendment is futile. 

Consequently, the Court concludes that Defendants' motion should be,

and it is hereby, GRANTED. Defendants' Amended Answer and the First

Amended Counterclaim of APFA is DEEMED filed this same day, and the

clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file a copy of the amended pleading,

which was attached as an exhibit to the motion for leave. See N.D.

Tex. L. Civ. R. 15.1(b).

Additionally, in light of the filing of APFA's First Amended

Counterclaim, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Second Motion to

Dismiss (doc. 107), which challenges the prior version of the 

counterclaim, should be, and it is hereby, DENIED as moot but without

prejudice.

SIGNED October 18, 2023.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 130 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4062
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
HIGHWOOD REALTY LIMITED PARTNERHSIP 3/31/99 10-Q
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              49,568
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       46,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,893
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    89,659
<PP&E>                                           3,808,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                     201,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,241,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              105,948
<BONDS>                                          1,927,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        384,997
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,823,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,241,420
<SALES>                                            145,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   151,155
<CGS>                                               45,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       73,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     5,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     41,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 41,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        33,228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .48
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Moro
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003
(the "Report") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, David W. Menard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

Dated: August 14, 2003                          /s/ David W. Menard
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David W. Menard
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                 and Chief Financial Officer