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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002

| | I, Raymond
  P. Warrell, Jr., M.D., certify that:
| | -------------------------------------------------
| |                                                  
| | 1.                                               
| |                                                  
| | 2.                                               
| |                                                  
| | 3.                                               
| |                                                  
| | 4.                                               
| |                                                  
| |                                                  
| |                                                  
| |                                                  
| |                                                  
| |                                                  
| | 5.                                               
| |                                                  
| |                                                  
| |                                                  

|Date: August
  6, 2004              
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|                                    
|/s/ RAYMOND
  P. WARRELL, JR., M.D. 
|                                    
|Name:  Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.
|Title:     Chief
  Executive Officer



---

---
**Exhibit**** 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Shaw Hong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byOmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

Dated: September 9,2010

 
|   | By:    | **/s/ SHAW HONG**                                 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | **Shaw Hong**                                     |
|   |   | *Chief Executive Officer, President and Director* |
|   |   | *(Principal Executive Officer)*                   |

 

 

I, Anson Chan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byOmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

Dated: September 9,2010

** **
|   | By:    | **/s/ ANSON CHAN**                             |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | **Anson Chan**                                 |
|   |   | *Chief Financial Officer*                      |
|   |   | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

AMBER TRIPLETT, )
)
Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:17-cy-618
)
¥ ) Judge Barrett
I
) Magistrate Judge Litkovitz
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner )
of Social Security, )
)
Defendant )
ORDER

THE COURT, having reviewed the Commissioner’s Motion for Stay, and being fully
advised in the premises, HEREBY ORDERS that the motion is granted. This matter is hereby
held in abeyance pending resolution by the Sixth Circuit of the EAJA petitions in similar cases.
Within ten (10) days of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security,
19-6395, the Commissioner of Social Security will file a notice notifying the Court of the Sixth
Circuit’s ruling.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ZI day of <LL-_, 2019.

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT K. HUDNALL and SHARON 

E. HUDNALL,

Appellants,

v.

SMITH AND RAMIREZ 

RESTORATION, L.L.C.,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00293-CV

Appeal from the

448th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2015DCV1113)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the attempted appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellants pay all costs of this appeal and this 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANAURY, 2020.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Alyssa Portnoy and Darlene Portnoy,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

National Credit Systems, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No: 1:17-cv-834

Judge: Michael R. Barrett

Defendant National Credit Systems, Inc.s

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Hearing

Now comes Defendant National Credit Systems, Inc. (“NCS”) and for its 

memorandum in opposition to Alyssa and Darlene Portnoy’s (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”)

motion for hearing, and in support thereof, states as follows:

Plaintiffs filed a motion for pre-trial conference on November 30, 2021, at ECF 135 

(hereinafter, the “Motion”). Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks a pretrial conference based upon on 

scantly-stated reasoning and allegations, limited to “(1) Defendants’ motion with 

supporting memorandum to dismiss and (2) the additional letters provided by 

Defendants, proving Defendants and their counsel made misrepresentations of material 

facts regarding the number of letters NCS sent to former relevant Williamsburg tenants 

to collect the relevant illegal debt.” Id. Moreover, these allegations of wrong-doing are 

wholly unsupported by citation to any record evidence or docket number (or other such 

support), and are unequivocally denied by NCS.

Furthermore, NCS states that its motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. # 120) is ripe for 

this Court’s consideration. Plaintiffs have filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss 

(ECF Doc. # 125-126) and did not oppose any factual underpinnings in NCS’s argument, 

and instead relied upon pre-Spokeo and pre-Ramirez case law, which is wholly erroneous, 

Case: 1:17-cv-00834-MRB Doc #: 136 Filed: 12/06/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1567
2

inapplicable, and outdated. On October 5, 2021, NCS re-affirmed its position regarding 

this matter and Plaintiffs’ lack of Article III Standing when filing its reply in support of 

the motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. # 129). Because the motion to dismiss is fully briefed,

NCS respectfully states that there is no need for an additional hearing unless or until a 

ruling is issued on the dispositive motion, should any claim survive.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Boyd W. Gentry

Boyd W. Gentry (0071057)

Zachary P. Elliott (0090057)

Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry, LLC

4031 Colonel Glenn Highway, First Floor

Beavercreek, OH 45431

Tel. (937) 839-2881

Fax (800) 839-5843

bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com

zelliott@boydgentrylaw.com

Counsel for National Credit Systems, Inc.

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served by the Court's CM/ECF service 

to all counsel of record on December 6, 2021.

/s/Boyd W. Gentry

Boyd W. Gentry (0071057)

Case: 1:17-cv-00834-MRB Doc #: 136 Filed: 12/06/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1568
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 

OF SOUTHERN OHIO & VICINITY 

BENEFIT TRUST, et al. 

 Plaintiffs 

v. 

J & H REINFORCING AND 

STRUCTURAL ERECTORS, INC., et al.

 Defendants 

Case No. 3:18-cv-00017 

Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISBURSEMENT 

Defendants request an order from the Court directing the Clerk’s Office to disburse 

excess money garnished in this matter. 

After judgment was entered, in July 2018 Garnishee US Bank deposited $24,872.09 

with the Clerk’s office. 

On August 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Disburse Funds Held By 

This Court (ECF No. 24). As noted by Plaintiffs in their motion, Defendants had made 

direct payments to Plaintiffs, decreasing the balance of the judgment amount. As a result, 

Plaintiff only moved for disbursement of $14,039.61 as the then remaining unsatisfied 

amount. That disbursement was then completed around September 2018. 

The balance of $10,832.48 continues to be held by the Clerk’s Office. Defendants 

request disbursement of the excess balance back to Defendants. 

Defendants move that $10,832.48 be disbursed by the Court to Defendants’ counsel: 

Schwandner Law Firm LLC 

Attn: Nicholas W. Schwandner, Esq. 

119 E. Court St., Ste. 504 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 
2

A proposed order is attached. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Nicholas W. Schwandner 

Nicholas W. Schwandner (0086471) 

SCHWANDNER LAW FIRM LLC 

119 E. Court St., Suite 504 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

T: 513-429-4099 

F: 513-772-7904 

ns@schwanlawfirm.com 

Counsel for Defendants 

J & H Reinforcing & Structural Erectors, Inc. 

and Donald A. Hadsell 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy was filed electronically, on July 10, 2023, via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system, which will serve notification upon: 

Joseph C. Hoffman, Jr.

Joseph D. Mando 

David M. Pixley 

Faulkner, Hoffman & Phillips, LLC 

20445 Emeral Parkway Dr., Ste. 210 

hoffman@fhplaw.com 

mando@fhplaw.com 

pixley@fhplaw.com 

/s/ Nicholas W. Schwandner 

Nicholas W. Schwandner
Incorporation by Reference 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0831 

November 13, 2014 

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by reference into and are 

considered to be included in, contained in and to have been placed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2014-0831 (Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 2015 

Revisions): 

1) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508 (Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting) 

2) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923 (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) 

3) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924 (Determination of Confidential Business Information) 

4) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0925 (Corporate Parent and NAICS Code in the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule) 

5) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926 (Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration) 

6) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 (Additional Sources of Fluorinated Gases) 

7) EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929 (Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements 

Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule) 

8) EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0147 (Minor Technical Corrections and Amendments to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules) 

9) EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0417 (Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Systems, Subpart W: Extension of 2011 BAMM Deadlines) 

10) EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512 (Technical Revisions for Subpart I and W of the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule) 

Accessing dockets: 

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 

(202) 566-1742.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

STATE OF OHIO
EX REL TED MARCUM,
Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-437
- VS - District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK,

Respondent.

RECOMMITTAL ORDER

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 67) to the Magistrate

Judge’s most recent Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 64).

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions

to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that

analysis.

May 24 , 2018. Ge
L, Rw / >

Walter H. Rice

United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID S. IRVIN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of May, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Indian Gaming Commission

          - 25 CFR Part 559
          - RIN 3141-AA76

# AGENCY:

National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 1, 2021, regarding Facility Licenses. The document contained incorrect dates for submitting comments. This correction clarifies that comments are due January 31, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hoenig, 202-632-7003.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 1, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-25845, on page 68200, in the third column, change the                     **DATES**                     caption to read:                

**DATES:**                     Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before January 31, 2022.                

Dated: January 6, 2022.

Michael Hoenig,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2022-00625 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4547 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4547

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, as the ``Captain Luther 
             H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN LUTHER H. SMITH, U.S. ARMY AIR FORCES POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Captain Luther H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Luther H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 9, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2009 

s0122 

Order 

 

February 4, 2009 

137508 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137508 

 COA: 286638 

Iosco CC: 07-003537-FH 

DANIEL JOHN COX, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) is pending on appeal before this Court and that 

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GABRIEL NEWMAN, 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Case No. 3:18-cr-00024 

District Judge Walter H. Rice 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DETENTION ORDER 

This case came on for hearing on March 28, 2018, on Motion of the United States 

for pretrial detention. 

 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), a defendant shall be detained pending trial if, after a 

hearing, the judicial officer finds that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably 

assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the 

community. The factors to be considered in determining whether to release a defendant 

pending trial are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and include: (1) the nature and 

circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 

(3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the 

danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release. 

 In considering the history and characteristics of the person, the judicial officer 

should consider the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, 

employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, 
past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record 

concerning appearance at court proceedings; and whether, at the time of the current 

offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending 

trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or 

local law. 

 Based upon the evidence presented and for the reasons stated on the record in open 

court, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination 

of conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) will reasonably assure the appearance of 

the Defendant as required and the safety of the community. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1) the Defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General 

of the United States for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the 

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held 

in custody pending appeal; 

2) the Defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private 

consultation with counsel; 

3) on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney 

for the United States, the person in charge of the facility in which the 

Defendant is confined deliver the Defendant to a United States Marshal or 

his deputy for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 

proceeding; and, 

4) in the event that Defendant seeks to appeal to the District Judge from 

this order, counsel must request a transcript of the detention hearing from 

the court reporter at the same time the appeal is filed. 

April 11, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge