alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1 Certifications I, Firoz Lalji, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Zones, Inc., certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zones, 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 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 we 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 (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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.  5.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of 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:  November 10, 2004 By: /S/ FIROZ H. LALJI
             
             Firoz H. Lalji, Chairman and Chief
      Executive Officer  1
# C_2023072EN.01004801.xml

| 28.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/48

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10821 – YOKOHAMA RUBBER CO / TRELLEBORG WHEEL SYSTEMS HOLDING)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 72/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd (‘YRC’, Japan), |
| --- | --- |

—

Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd (‘YRC’, Japan),

| — | Trelleborg Wheel Systems Holding AB (‘TWS’, Sweden). |
| --- | --- |

—

Trelleborg Wheel Systems Holding AB (‘TWS’, Sweden).

YRC will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of TWS.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | YRC is active in the manufacture and sale of tyres, including off-highway tyres for various vehicles, including agricultural and non-agricultural vehicles (i.e. industrial and construction vehicles). It is also active in the manufacture and sale of other rubber based products, |
| --- | --- |

—

YRC is active in the manufacture and sale of tyres, including off-highway tyres for various vehicles, including agricultural and non-agricultural vehicles (i.e. industrial and construction vehicles). It is also active in the manufacture and sale of other rubber based products,

| — | TWS is active in the manufacture and sale of tyres, including off-highway tyres for various vehicles including agricultural and non-agricultural vehicles (i.e. industrial and construction vehicles). TWS is also active in the replacement and after sale services market, through its wholy-owned subsidiary, Interfit. |
| --- | --- |

—

TWS is active in the manufacture and sale of tyres, including off-highway tyres for various vehicles including agricultural and non-agricultural vehicles (i.e. industrial and construction vehicles). TWS is also active in the replacement and after sale services market, through its wholy-owned subsidiary, Interfit.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10821 – YOKOHAMA RUBBER CO / TRELLEBORG WHEEL SYSTEMS HOLDING

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
Order filed October 1, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00287

- CR

____________ THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V.
JOAN FRANCES STUKES , Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13

- DCR

- 064055A



### ORDER
This case was submitted on the briefs on September 2, 2015. The appellee is represented by counsel, who filed a brief on her behalf on July 6, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the court received a letter from the appellee that contains substantive arguments about the appeal. A party represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State , 906 S.W. 2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Therefore, the court will not consider the letter.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-40363, 333-51585,333-81351, 333-89280, 333-100224, 333-113723, 333-117258, 333-140746 and333-141330 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-124383 on Form S-3of our report dated April 18, 2007, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of The Pep Boys—Manny, Moe &Jack and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and OtherPostretirement Plans,*SFAS No. 123(revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment*, and Financial Accounting StandardsBoard Interpretation No. 47, *Accounting for ConditionalAsset Retirement Obligations*, as of February 3, 2007, January 29,2006, and January 28, 2006, respectively) and our report dated April 18,2007, relating to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofThe Pep Boys—Manny, Moe & Jack for the fiscal year ended February 3,2007.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaApril 18, 2007

----
#### DANIELS v. STATE.

No. 18866.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1937.

Harvey P. Shead, of Longview, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is transporting motor fuel and gasoline under false billing; the punishment, a fine of $250.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.
### Dock.,?- ^ 

# 9^ )

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C Drak e Aeria l Enterprises , LL C d/b/ aAi r Americ aAeria l Ad s an d Jame s Mille r Complainant , Cit y o f Clevelan d Respondent . FA A Docke t No . 16-09-0 2

REQUES T FO RADDITIONA LINFORMATIO N o Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.29(b)(1) , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) ha s determine d that th e pleading s i n thi s matte r nee dt o b e supplemente db y limited , additiona l informatio n fromth e Respondent . Jh e Responden t i s requeste dt o fully answe r th e followin g question s withi n 1 0 day s fromth e dat e o f issuanc e o f

thi s request . Question s for

th e Responden t 1

- Wha t i s th e City' s proces s for

reviewin g an dapprovin g ne w aeronautica l businesse s a t th e Airport ? I f

thi s proces s i s discusse di n th e Airport' s Minimu mStandards , pleas e provid e acop y o f

thi s document . 2

- Describ e th e approva l proces s th e City use dwhe n reviewin g th e mos t recentl y accepte d aeronautica l busines s at

th e Airport . Wa s thi s busines s require dt o obtai n th e approva l o f th e Directo r

o f Port Confrol ? Wa s thi s busines s require dt o obtai n approva l o f th e Clevelan dCity Council ? Th e partie s t o th e Complain t shoul dno t

conside r tha t thes e question s necessaril y represen t al l o f th e FAA' s concern s regardin g th e issue s raise di n thi s matter . Furthermore , th e partie s shoul dno t

assum e tha t

th e sponsor' s complianc e statu s woul dturn , necessarily , o n an y on e answe r t o aquestion .

Randal l S . Fiert z Directo r o f Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s AU G 2 7 200 9 Dat eCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y that o n Augus t

27 , 200 9 I cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite d State s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid ) atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

addresse d to : Rebecc aE . Dupui s Natha n A . Hal l Shumaker , Loo p & Kendrick , LL P NorthCourthous e Squar e 100 0 Jackso n Stree t Toledo , Ohi o 4360 4 (419 ) 241-900 0

Counse l for

Complainan t Edwar dW . Saue r Charles F . Donley , I I Squire , Sander s & Dempse y L.L.P . 120 1 Pennsylvani aAvenue , N.W . Washington , D C 2000 4 (202 ) 626-664 1

Counse l for

Responden t Han dDelivere dto : Part 1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docke t

Deanaf aBrooks( Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an d Fiel dOperation s
# C_2022427EN.01002901.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/29

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR CYBERSECURITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2021

(2022/C 427/29)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa/accounting-finance/files/enisa-annual-accounts/enisa-final-annual-accounts-2021-signed-ts-signed-ts.pdf

---
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 14
- 00191
- CR

CECIL CHARLES GILLIS APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRI CT COURT NO. 4 OF TA RRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1139 398W

---------- 

### MEMORA NDUM OPINION 1

---------- Pro se Appellant Cecil Charles Gillis attempts to appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity. The trial court’s certification states that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defenda nt has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On May 14 , 2014, we notified
Gillis that the appeal would be dismissed pursuant to the trial court’s certification

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal file d a response on or
b efore May 27 , 2014, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. We have not received a response

. Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CU RIAM PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: J uly 3 , 2014
| (i)   | the      Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008      (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) , as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:       August 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey      J. Raymond          |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Name:       Jeffrey J. Raymond  |   |
|                             |   | Title:       President          |   |
|                             |   |                                      |   |

| Date:       August 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Stephen      DelVecchia                |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Name:       Stephen DelVecchia        |   |
|                             |   | Title:       Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                             |   |                                            |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2862 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2862

  To authorize the amendment of the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
  provide for an increase in 2 levels if the defendant intentionally 
  selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of 
  conviction because of the victim's military service or status as a 
                                veteran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2015

 Mr. Rooney of Florida (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Walz, Mr. Brady 
 of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Rigell) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the amendment of the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
  provide for an increase in 2 levels if the defendant intentionally 
  selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of 
  conviction because of the victim's military service or status as a 
                                veteran.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Protection Enhancement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United 
States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall, if 
appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide for an 
increase in 2 levels if the defendant intentionally selected any victim 
or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of 
the victim's military service or status as a veteran.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lawrence J. COHEN and Marilyn P. Cohen, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 75-1578.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 1976.

James J. McGannon (argued), of Regan & McGannon, Wichita, Kan., for appellants.

Donald H. Olson, Atty. (argued), of Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington D. C., for appellee.

Before HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable William W. Schwarzer, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the Tax Court.1

The taxpayers’ argument that amounts withheld from a Civil Service employee’s base pay and deposited to the Civil Service retirement and disability fund be deemed an “employer contribution” and thus not includable in the taxpayers’ current gross income has been firmly rejected by the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits. *(Hogan v. United States*(6th Cir. 1975) 513 F.2d 170; *Megibow v. Commissioner*(3d Cir. 1955) 218 F.2d 687; *Miller v. Commissioner*(4th Cir. 1944) 144 F.2d 287.) We expressly adopt the reasoning of *Hogan v. United States, supra.*

The Taxpayers’ reliance on *Pennie v. Reis*(1889) 132 U.S. 464, 10 S.Ct. 149, 33 L.Ed. 426 is misplaced. Here, unlike *Pennie, no*forfeiture is involved. Moreover, *Pennie**726was not a tax case, and we can find no analogy between the taxing scheme with which we are here concerned and the police officers’ fund that engaged the Court’s attention in *Pennie.*

AFFIRMED.

1

. The Tax Court’s opinion is reported at 63 T.C. 267 (1974).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(b)
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Date: September 28, 2005 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
#### SCHWARZ v. SPRINKLE.

No. 8961.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 21, 1932.

Carter & Stiernberg, of Harlingen, for appellant.

' S. L. Gill and O. N. McNeil, both of Ray-mondviUe, for appellee.

SMITH, J.

As a result of a collision of their motor vehicles on a highway in Willacy county, E. F. Schwarz and F. D. Sprinkle sued each other for damages, one by direct and the other by cross action. As usual in such cases, each party accused the other of operating his car on the wrong side of the roadway, as well as of other acts of negligence, and charged that such acts caused the accident. A jury found against Schwarz, who has appealed.

Schwarz pleaded Sprinkle’s negligence in four separate acts, and supported the pleading with material evidence. In answer to special issues the jury found: (1) That the “collision was not the result of an unavoidable accident”; (2) that appellee was “operating his truck on his right side of the highway at the time and place of the accident” ; (3) that appellant was “operating his car on his left side of the highway.” The jury thereupon answered “defendant” to these two issues:

> “Special Issue No. 4. Who do you find, from a preponderance of the evidence, was not at the time and place of this collision operating his car or truck in a careful and prudent manner, if either?

> “Special Issue No. 5. Was either plaintiff or defendant negligent in the operating of his car at the time and place of this collision? If so, name which one, plaintiff or defendant.”

.No other issues were submitted except as to the amount of damages.

The issue of proximate cause was not sub*591mitted to the jury, and appellant’s request for such submission was refused by the court.

It will be observed that the court submitted the issues of negligence in one general question, although appellant pleaded four separate and specific acts of negligence against appellee. The court submitted none of those acts, except that of driving upon the wrong side of the roadway. Appellant objected to this character of submission and timely requested that the other three acts charged be submitted, but the court refused. Under the testimony the jury could have found against appellee upon either or all of those issues, and, so finding, could have further found that such negligence proximately caused the collision, in which event appellee could not have recovered. In such situation, under positive current decisions of' oiir Supreme Court, the action of the trial court in submitting all questions of negligence in one issue and in refusing to submit specific acts of negligence alleged, and in rendering judgment in the absence of a finding of proximate cause, was reversible error. International-Great Northern R. Co. v. casey (Tex. Com. App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 669; Kansas City, M. & O. R. Co. v. Perry (Tex. Com. App.) 6 S.W.(2d) 111, 114; France v. Graves (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 438, and authorities there cited; Southern Iron & Mach. Co. v. Portugal (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S.W.(2d) 685.

Reversed and remanded.
#### The State, ex rel. Karam, a Taxpayer, *v.*Cull et al., Civil Service Commission of the City of Cleveland, et al.

(No. 28875

Decided March 18, 1942.)

*Mr. B. Bill Murad,*for relator.

*Mr. Thomas A. Burke, Jr.,*director of law, and *Mr. Charles W. White,*for respondents.

By the Court.

Relator, as a taxpayer of the city of Cleveland, filed a petition in mandamus in this court praying that the civil service commission of that city be compelled to hold promotional examinations to fill vacancies in certain positions in the police department, in accordance with Section 486-15u, General Code. Issues were joined by answers and a reply. Depositions were taken on behalf of respondents and relator. It was later stipulated by counsel that after *416the depositions were taken promotional examinations were held and the civil service commission certified to the director of public safety names from eligible lists for the positions.

This court will take into consideration the facts and conditions existing at the time it determines whether to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus. *State, ex rel. Apple,*v. *Pence et al., Bd. of Edn. of Shelby County School District,*137 Ohio St., 569, 31 N. E. (2d), 841.

The facts before the court establish that the legal questions involved have become moot and a writ is therefore denied, at costs of relator. *Miner*v. *Witt, Clerk,*82 Ohio St., 237, 92 N. E., 21; *State, ex rel. Fish,*v. *Industrial Commission,*123 Ohio St., 678, 177 N. E., 766; 11 Ohio Jurisprudence, 762, Section 111.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, 0. J., Turner, Wiluams, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Bettman, J., not participating.