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

 

**CERTIFICATION—Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Alan B. Miller, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Universal Health Realty Income Trust; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue 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 annual report;

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officers andI 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 designedunder 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 annual report is beingprepared; 

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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;

 

c)    disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

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 theregistrant’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: March 12, 2004
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I 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) Designed such disclosure controlsand 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant 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 financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 1, 2007 

 

 

20
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Steve Nicandros, Luis Giusti, Tyler Nelson and Frontera Resources 

Corporation v. Zaza Mamulaishvili, individually and derivatively on 

behalf of Frontera Resources Corporation

Appellate case number: 01-21-00125-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-03816

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

This is an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration and stay 

proceedings. Counsel for Appellee Zaza Mamulaishvili filed a motion to withdraw, stating they 

“ha[ve] been unable to communicate with Mr. Mamulaishvili in a manner consistent with good 

attorney-client relations.” They further state Appellee “has not met his financial obligations 

under the terms of his engagement letter” and that counsel advised Appellee they would seek to 

withdraw if Appellee did not “provide [counsel] with the financial resources necessary to 

continue [Appellee’s] representation.” 

Counsel’s motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 in that they state 

there are no current deadlines or settings and that they have advised Appellee by email and first

class and certified mail to Appellee’s last known address of the motion and of Appellee’s right to 

object. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(a). Although we held this motion for more than ten days, 

Appellee did not respond. We grant the motion to withdraw. 

Counsel must immediately notify Appellee in writing of any deadlines in this appeal that 

have not been previously disclosed to Appellee and file a copy of this notice with the clerk of 

this Court within ten days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

 Acting individually 

Date: December 7, 2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Michelle R. Kelso,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-435

Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the March

5, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). 

The magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiff’s statement of

errors be overruled, and that the decision of the Commissioner be

affirmed.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days “will result in a waiver of the right to have the

district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo” and a

“waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court

adopting the Report and Recommendation.” Doc. 11, p. 21. The time

period for filing objections to the report and recommendation has

expired, and no party has objected to the report and

recommendation.

The court adopts the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge (Doc. 11). Plaintiff’s statement of errors is

overruled, and the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. The

clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner. 
It is so ordered.

Date: March 27, 2019 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-159-2

Jose Octavio Reyes-Julian 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 32) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment,

and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The court will

defer the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until

the sentencing hearing.

Date: October 26, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 123 

Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1437. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2022 

Ms. DELAURO submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1437. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of H.R. 1437, the 

3 Clerk of the House of Representatives shall amend the 

4 title so as to read: ‘‘Making further continuing appropria5 tions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023, and 

6 for other purposes.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./ C.R. BARD, 

INC. POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION 

NOTICE

 Case No. 2:18-md-2846

 JUDGE EDMUND A SARGUS, JR. 

 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

This notice relates to: ALL CASES.

TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date, and time set forth 

below:

Place: United States District Court 

 Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse GoToMeeting

85 Marconi Boulevard November 4, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. 

 Columbus, Ohio 43215 

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE via GoToMeeting

(This conference is for defense counsel and PSC attorneys.)

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: October 4, 2022

 /s / Christin M. Werner 

(By) Christin M. Werner, Deputy Clerk

 

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 666 Filed: 10/04/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 8047
1

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-544

 Judge Sargus, Jr.

v.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

Jury Trial Day 5

Monday, June 13, 2022

Before Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

For Plaintiff: John Marshall and Sam Schlein

For Defendant: Susan Williams, Wes Phillips and Paul Bernhart

Courtroom Deputy: Denise Shane

Court Reporter: Crystal Hatchett

Judge meets with counsel without jury.

Plaintiff’s closing argument by John Marshall.

Defendant’s closing by Wes Phillips.

Rebuttal by Mr. Marshal.

Court reads jury instructions.

10:52 am Jurors deliberating

2:10 pm Question from jurors – court meets with counsel

3:06pm – Verdict Form(s) # 1 – For Plaintiff, # 2, amount $1 , #3 For Plaintiff, #4 

amount $1

3:10 pm Court adjourned.

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 102 Filed: 06/13/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5733
2

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 102 Filed: 06/13/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5734
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 1 0 9 3 1 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. M I S A E L B A R R I E N T O S , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 4 7

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y , S T E W A R T , a n d O W E N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t M i s a e l B a r r i e n t o s h a s

m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. B a r r i e n t o s h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 22 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-10931 Document: 00511149925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



By:

/s/    PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer




August 14, 2003
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)
)
vs ) Case No. 3:17CR197(2)
Houda-Ezamane Hamadi )

)

ORDER TERMINATING PROBATION

The above named commenced a term of Probation on July 10, 2018. For good cause shown, it is
hereby ordered that the defendant is discharged from Probation and that the proceedings in the

case be terminated.

Dated this In.\day of NerswWyr, 2019

(Bc hex

Walter H. Rice
United States District Court Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Verso Technologies, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-74258, 333-74264, 333-59372, 333-92337, 333-85107,
333-80501, and 333-26015) of Verso Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
February 27, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Verso
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003,
and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Verso Technologies, Inc.
and subsidiaries.

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, effective
July 1, 2001, Verso Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries adopted the provisions
of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 141, "Business
Combinations," and certain provisions of SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets," as required for goodwill and other intangible assets
resulting from business combinations consummated after June 30, 2001, and fully
adopted all provisions effective January 1, 2002.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 12, 2004
Case: 1:18-cv-00591-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 87
Case: 1:18-cv-00591-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 88
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00283-CV

CYNTHIA HOLLAND, Appellant

V.

MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM, Appellee

Appeal from the 165th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-17174).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on February 

3, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s 

judgment. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the 

case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Court orders that the appellee, Memorial Hermann Health System, pay all 

appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered November 24, 2015.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Jennings.
#### Jimmy CHERRY and Motors Insurance Corporation *v.*Danny VINSON

5-4590

427 S. W. 2d 17

Opinion delivered April 29, 1968

*Shaver, Tackett*& *Jones*and *Terral, Rawlings, Matthews*& *Purtle,*for appellants.

*George E. Steel*and *McMillan, Teague, Bramhall & Davis,*for appellee.

Paul Ward, Justice.

This litigation arises out of an automobile collision.

*743Jimmy Cherry, appellant, filed a complaint against Danny Vinson, appellee, alleging, in material parts: The collision occurred on Hospital Road in Nashville; that appellee was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout; in stopping his car in such manner as to create "a danger to motorists, and in refusing to abide by traffic laws. He alleged and asked for the following damages: $2,414 for damage to his car; $546 for medical and hospital expenses; and, $23,000 for loss of earnings. A few days later Motors Insurance Corporation also filed a complaint (in the same court) against appellee, alleging that it had issued its policy to appellant covering his damaged car, that it had already paid him $2,371.50 in full settlement, and that it was subrogated to the rights 'of appellant. Its prayer was for judgment in the said amount against appellee.

To the above complaints appellee alleged that the alleged injuries and damages were caused by the negligence of appellant.

A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Cherry for $800 against appellee. The jury made no finding in favor of Motors Insurance. Both parties now prosecute this appeal, alleging two points for a reversal: One, the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain testimony. Two, the verdict of the jury was contrary to the court’s instruction.

*One.*It is our conclusion that the case must be reversed on this point. One of the specific acts of negligence with which appellee was charged was that he improperly parked oh the street in violation of traffic rules and regulations. After the collision a traffic officer made an investigation. Appellants offered to introduce testimony to show appellee pleaded guilty in the Nashville City Court to a charge of “improper parking”, and it was refused by the trial court. We think the jury had a right to consider this testimony for what it was worth on the issue of comparative negligence as be*744tween appellee and appellant, Cherry. In *Harbor*v. *Campbell,*235 Ark. 492, 360 S. W. 2d 758, the applicable rule was announced as follows:

> *“A*plea of guilty for traffic violation for the identical traffic mishap is certainly a declaration against interest; and such plea of guilty is as admissible as any other declaration against interest in any other case.”

*Two.*Since the case must be reversed on point One the cause of action must be retried as to all parties. In view of that situation we merely point out [as was pointed out by the trial court] that if the jury finds against appellee for any amount in favor of Cherry it must also find against appellee in some amount in favor of Motors Insurance Corporation under the admitted facts in the record before us.

Reversed and rémanded.
Case: 3:18-cv-00256-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/30/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 28
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Sholodge, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending July 14, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), Leon Moore,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) 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 result of operations
            of the Company.




/s/ Leon Moore
------------------------
Leon Moore
Chief Executive Officer
April 8, 2003




<PAGE>










                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Sholodge, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending July 14, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), Bob Marlowe,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
            15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (4)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.




/s/ Bob Marlowe
------------------------
Bob Marlowe
Chief Financial Officer
April 8, 2003