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

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Simon, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Simon Property Group, L.P.;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant and have:



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 function):



|Date: March 16, 2006 |  |                                                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/DAVID SIMONDavid Simon
Chief Executive Officer of Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner

121

---



QuickLinks
#### Kate Feeney, Resp’t; *vs.*The Long Island R. R. Co., App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed December*14, 1886.)

Railroads — Gates at crossing — Duty to persons crossing track in management of.

The defendant operates a road in the city of B., which is crossed by a street, and the defendant is by a city ordinance required to keep gates at the crossing. The defendant did operate them. The plaintiff crossing defendant’s tracks on one occasion was struck by the descending gate and injured. *Held,*that the defendant owed the duty to those who passed its tracks to manage the gates so as to be a protection against railroad trains and also to so raise and lower them as to avoid injury to those who crossed its tracks after a train had passed.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict at the Kings County Circuit and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes.

*Hinsdale & Sprague,*for appellant; *Charles J. Patterson,*for respondent.

Barnard P. J.,

The defendant operates a road in the City of Brooklyn. Utica Avenue crosses the road and the defendant is bound by a city ordinance to keep gates at the crossing. The defendant did keep and manage gates there, one at each side of the track.

The plaintiff arrived at the gates on the 8th of November 1885 and found them closed. When the obstruction was removed the gates were raised and the plaintiff passed over. After *64
      *she got over the tracks the gateman lowered the gate so rapidly*that the gate struck the plaintiff on the head and injured her quite severely. The ease seems a plain one on these facts. The only issue made was made by the gateman, and he testified that he struck no one to his knowledge. The plaintiff is supported in her statement by Thomas Mowers, an intelligent and disinterested witness. The defendant owed a duty to those who passed its tracks to manage the gates so as to be a protection as against the railroad trains and also to so raise and lower the gates as to avoid injury to those who crossed its tracks after a train had passed. No doubt, in a populous city with many persons constantly passing its tracks, it is difficult to do this, but' the jury have said that this accident could with prudence have been avoided.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed with costs.

DykmAn and Pratt J., concur.
Order entered December 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00475-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.Y. AND J.M.Y., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-98-16446-T

ORDER

Before the Court are (1) appellee’s November 30, 2016 pro se unopposed motion to 

extend time to file appellee’s brief and (2) Georganna L. Simpson’s December 1, 2016 notice of 

appearance and designation of counsel for appellee. Because appellee is represented by counsel, 

we will take no action on her pro se motion for extension of time to file appellee’s brief. See In 

the Interest of D.W., 445 S.W.3d 913, 914 n. 1 (Tex. App—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (appellant 

not entitled to hybrid representation).

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to add Georganna L. Simpson, 1349 Empire Central 

Drive, Woodview Tower, Ste. 600, Dallas, TX 75247, (214) 905-3739, State Bar Number 

18400965, as lead counsel for appellee. Appellee’s brief is due on or before January 17, 2017.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2 – CFO 906
Certification




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Michael W. Zima,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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 operation of the Company.




Date:  March
      26, 2010
            /s/ Michael W. ZimaMichael
      W. ZimaChief
      Financial Officer and Principal
              Financial
      and Accounting Officer




32.2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6645

NARAYAN SAHEFD HURT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-03-413-2)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 21, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Narayan Sahefd Hurt, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Narayan Sahefd Hurt seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

March 2, 2004. According Hurt the benefit of Fed. R. App. P.

4(c)(1), the notice of appeal was filed no earlier than April 2,

2004, one day late. Because Hurt failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2015045EN.01000201.xml

| 7.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 February 2015

(2015/C 45/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1447 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4441 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74730 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4565 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0534 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,5715 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,698 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,27 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1650 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4143 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7878 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4572 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4246 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8739 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5414 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5377 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 244,86 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,9486 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1535 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,7170 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 430,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0347 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,573 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,8600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,237 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1536 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8843 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,6442 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1447

JPY

Japanese yen

134,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4441

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74730

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4565

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0534

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,5715

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,698

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,27

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1650

RON

Romanian leu

4,4143

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7878

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4572

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4246

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8739

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5414

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5377

KRW

South Korean won

1 244,86

ZAR

South African rand

12,9486

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1535

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,7170

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 430,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0347

PHP

Philippine peso

50,573

RUB

Russian rouble

76,8600

THB

Thai baht

37,237

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1536

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8843

INR

Indian rupee

70,6442

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARACELI GONZALEZ; MARIO E.

GONZALEZ,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by

merger; et al.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-16309

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02305-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Araceli and Mario E. Gonzalez appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

FILED

MAR 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs failed to

allege facts sufficient to state plausible wrongful foreclosure and quiet title claims. 

See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must

still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). To

the extent that plaintiffs challenge the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) to assign its interest in plaintiffs’ deed of trust, these

arguments fail. See Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 311 P.3d 237 (Ariz.

Ct. App. 2013) (holding that MERS, as nominee and beneficiary of a deed of trust,

may assign the note and deed of trust).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ Rule

60(b) motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs did not demonstrate any

grounds warranting such relief. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am.

Construction Co., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because North American

and Federal simply reargued their case . . . the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion [for reconsideration].”).

We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the district court was required to hold a

hearing before deciding their motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b)

2 13-16309
(“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions

on briefs, without oral hearings.”).

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised

and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-16309
t '.' .•: If It » » Lf. ) 

HIS 

February 24, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's application to provide 

new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to 

Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last December in reaching a 

landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New York and Los Angeles to 

Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between three of the world's financial and commerce 

centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance membership, have 

underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific market. American is likewise committed to 

New York and Los Angles - both vital focal points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education 

- providing unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits from these proposed 

new flights, as will American's customers and employees. However, we need your help to make the 

JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to fly from Kennedy to 

Haneda! 

Sincerely, __ ^- ^ 

%S-^'0 O^^ice Branch l\Aam^ ' Urn / \yUiatCi 

H.I.S. International Tours (NY), Inc.
# C_2015217EN.01001601.xml

| 2.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7628 — Permira/CPPIB/Informatica)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 217/02)

On 22 June 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7628. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7628. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of 
Kevco, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-19959) of our report dated February 21, 
1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Kevco, Inc. as 
of December 31, 1996 and December 31, 1995 and for the years ended December 31, 
1996 and 1995, which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report 
on Form 10-K.

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Fort Worth, Texas
March 27, 1997
# C_2015290EN.01000801.xml

| 4.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 September 2015

(2015/C 290/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1229 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,98 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73450 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3907 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0903 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2730 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,20 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2330 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4305 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3350 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6035 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4893 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7026 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7679 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5901 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 338,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2883 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1370 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5585 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 951,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7613 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,579 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,5386 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,295 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2672 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9809 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,3837 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1229

JPY

Japanese yen

134,98

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73450

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3907

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0903

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2730

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,20

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2330

RON

Romanian leu

4,4305

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3350

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6035

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4893

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7026

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7679

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5901

KRW

South Korean won

1 338,03

ZAR

South African rand

15,2883

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1370

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5585

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 951,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7613

PHP

Philippine peso

52,579

RUB

Russian rouble

75,5386

THB

Thai baht

40,295

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2672

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9809

INR

Indian rupee

74,3837

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00699-CR

IN RE Albert NICOLAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus on October 24, 2016, alleging the trial court 

had failed to rule on motions he had filed. On November 8, 2016, Respondent filed with this court

a copy of an order denying the motions. Therefore, this mandamus proceeding has become moot

and is, accordingly, dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. B93-6 and B93-7, styled The State of Texas v. Albert Nicolas, Jr., aka Allen

Nicolas, pending in the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable Rex Emerson presiding.
Order entered December 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01018-CV

CLIFFORD NKEYASEN, Appellant

V.

ALAMO MANHATTAN ROUTH STREET, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-02866-D

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 29, 2016 motion to extend time to file 

appellant’s brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief shall be filed on or 

before January 20, 2017.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Filed 12/5/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2016 ND 222

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Francis Robert Ochiti, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20150273

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central  Judicial District, the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Tristan J. Van de Streek, Cass County Courthouse, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, ND 58108-2806; for plaintiff and appellee; on brief..

Francis R. Ochiti, self-represented, 1800 48th Ave. SW, Bismarck, ND 58506; on brief.

State v. Ochiti

No. 20150273

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Francis Ochiti appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery.  Ochiti, self-represented, argues the district court erred in admitting evidence from a search warrant.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7), concluding Ochiti’s objection to the search warrant cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.  State v. Zahn, 2007 ND 2, ¶ 6, 725 N.W.2d 894. 

[¶2]Ochiti argues the district court erred by not acting on his motion for a new trial, in admitting video evidence and by not allowing him to compel and confront certain witnesses.  We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3]Ochiti argues outrageous government conduct requires reversal of his conviction and his counsel was ineffective.  We conclude these issues are inadequately briefed to permit meaningful consideration.  See Smestad v. Harris, 2011 ND 91, ¶ 5, 796 N.W.2d 662. 

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom