alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PERSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Data Systems, 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 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 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; and

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 the 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: August 14, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael R. Sayre   
|Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rachel Kaissar, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 913]

*830Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 19, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the UnemploymehifTnsurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a staff accountant due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant removed documents from work, although aware of the company policy that documents not be removed without permission. She then refused the employer’s request that they be returned, testifying that she needed the documents for a potential harassment and discrimination suit against the employer. Inasmuch as failure to comply with a reasonable request *(see Matter of Holland [Commissioner of Labor],*292 AD 2d 667, 668 [2002]) or known policy of the employer which is detrimental to the employer’s interest has been held to constitute misconduct *(see Matter of Arbatosky [Commissioner of Labor],*302 AD2d 787, 788 [2003]; *Matter of Rothman [Sweeney],*242 AD2d 818 [1997]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision. Claimant’s belated assertion that she had permission to take the documents presented a credibility issue for the Board *(see Matter of Arbatosky [Commissioner of Labor], supra*at 788).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### IN RE: Loren MILLER; Sarah Miller, Debtors, Loren Miller, Appellant, v. Jeremy W. Faith, Trustee; Sarah Miller, Appellees.

No. 16-60011

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 21, 2017

Loren Miller, Pro Se

Noreen A. Madoyan, Meghann Ahern Triplett, Margulies Faith, LLP, Encino, CA, for Appellee Jeremy W. Faith

Robert E. Hurlbett, Esquire, Attorney, Hurlbett & Olmstead, Santa Barbara, CA, for Appellee Sarah Miller

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Loren Miller appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey),*349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller’s appeal for failure to file an opening brief and excerpts of record after the BAP provided multiple extensions of time and warnings that failure to file a brief would result in dismissal of the appeal. *See id.*at 1189-91; *see also*9th Cir. BAP R. 8018(a)-2 (providing for dismissal of an appeal when an appellant “fails to file an opening brief timely, or otherwise fails to comply with rules or orders regarding processing the appeal ... ”); *Clinton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Clinton),*449 B.R. 79, 83 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (pro se litigants in bankruptcy proceedings are not excused from compliance with procedural rules).

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by denying Miller’s third motion to extend time to file an opening brief because Miller did not demonstrate cause for relief. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 (explaining that the BAP “for cause shown may at any time in its discretion” extend a deadline “if the request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed”).

We reject as meritless Miller’s contentions regarding the alleged bad faith of the BAP.

Miller’s request to take judicial notice of the underlying proceedings, set forth in his opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20567 Conference Calendar

JAMES L. BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT; FRED FIGUEROA; J.D. PUGH, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-1440

- - - - - - - - - - August 19, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James L. Black, Texas prisoner #647682, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Because Black’s claims of negligence and vicarious liability are not cognizable in a § 1983 cause of action, the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that his claims were frivolous. See Marsh v. Jones , 53 F.3d 707, 712 (5th Cir. 1995); Moore v. Mabus , 976 F.2d 268,No. 97-20567 -2- 270 (5th Cir. 1992); Thompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). Black’s appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous, and therefore is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; see Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Black is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals or pleadings filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Black should therefore review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6062 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa to approve 
amendments to the territorial constitution based on majority rule in a 
democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act 
of Congress delegating administration of Federal territorial law in the 
territory to the President, and to the Secretary of the Interior under 
      Executive Order 10264, dated June 29, 1951, under which the 
Constitution of American Samoa was approved and may be amended without 
requirement for further congressional action, subject to the authority 
  of Congress under the Territorial Clause in article IV, section 3, 
              clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON AMENDMENTS TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF 
              THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

    Section 12 of Public Law 98-213 (48 U.S.C. 1662a) is repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa to approve 
amendments to the territorial constitution based on majority rule in a 
democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act 
of Congress delegating administration of Federal territorial law in the 
territory to the President, and to the Secretary of the Interior under 
      Executive Order 10264, dated June 29, 1951, under which the 
Constitution of American Samoa was approved and may be amended without 
requirement for further congressional action, subject to the authority 
  of Congress under the Territorial Clause in article IV, section 3, 
              clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , DC 20460



# AUG 3 1 2011

;)FFICE OF The Honorable Greg Hines AIR t,ND RADIAilON Mayor City ofRogers 301 West Chestnut Street Rogers, Arkansas 72756
Dear Mayor Hines:
Thank you for your letter ofAugust 3, 2011, to Administrator Lisa Jackson, expressing concern over potential impacts ofthe proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for FossilFuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, MATS), which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 20 II. The Administrator asked that I respond on her behalf.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carefully analyzed the issue ofelectric supply, working closely with the Department ofEnergy. Our modeling shows that these proposed standards would result in relatively small changes in the average retail price ofelectricity, primarily due to increased demand for natural gas, keeping electricity prices below 1990 levels. This translates into a 1.3 percent increase in residential natural gas prices and a consumer electricity price increase ofapproximately $3-4 per month.
The proposed standards, which will save thousands of lives and prevent tens ofthousands ofasthma and heart attacks, are both reasonable and achievable, and many sources already are meeting them. Investing in pollution control at power plants creates high-quality Americanjobs in manufacturing steel, cement, and other materials needed to build pollution control equipment, and in installing, operating, and maintaining that equipment. The EPA estimates this proposed rule will provide employment for thousands by supporting 31,000 short-term constructionjobs and 9,000 long-term utilityjobs. These jobs would be distributed nationwide, including in Texas, in proportion to the number ofcoal-fired units that need upgrades.
The EPA will work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE and other entities whose responsibility is to ensure an affordable, reliable supply ofelectricity, including State Utility Commissions, Regional Transmission Organizations, and the National Electric Reliability Council to share information and encourage them to begin planning for compliance and reliability as early as possible

. This will ensure orderly, affordable compliance with the proposed standards. Energy efficiency investments that achieve moderate levels ofenergy demand reduction in compliance strategies can also substantially cut total emissions control costs for the power sector.

Internet Address (URl) • http IIwww epa gov Recycled/Recyclable · Ponted With Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsume r, Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper

### Again, thank you for your letter. It 

### will be placed in public docket this rulemaking. I opportunity to be of and trust the information provided is helpful. Sincerely,

McCarthy Administrator
<PAGE>   1
              EXHIBIT 11.1-COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,       NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                  1999                  1998              1999               1998
                                            ------------------    -----------------  ----------------   ----------------
<S>                                           <C>               <C>                 <C>               <C>
Income applicable to common shares:

Net Income (Loss)                                   $349              $(1,519)            $1,275            $(2,342)

                                            ------------------    -----------------  ----------------   ----------------
        Income (Loss) applicable to
        common shares                               $349              $(1,519)            $1,275            $(2,342)
                                            ==================    =================  ================   ================


    Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding                             7,361                7,292              7,350              7,292

        Weighted average common shares             7,361                7,292              7,350              7,292
                                            ==================    =================  ================   ================


    Income (Loss) per common share                 $0.05              $(0.21)              $0.17             $(0.32)
                                            ==================    =================  ================   ================
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cayetano SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10100 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Cayetano Sandoval raises an argument that is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03675]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 2123]


Approval of Subzone Status, OBlockz LLC, Lawrence, Massachusetts

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for ``. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of subzones for specific uses;
    Whereas, the Massachusetts Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 27, has made application to the Board for the establishment of a 
subzone at the facility of OBlockz LLC, located in Lawrence, 
Massachusetts (FTZ Docket B-65-2021, docketed September 23, 2021);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (86 FR 53945-53946, September 29, 2021) and the 
application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves subzone status at the 
facility of OBlockz LLC, located in Lawrence, Massachusetts (Subzone 
27S), as described in the application and Federal Register notice, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.13.

    Dated: Feb. 15, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate 
Chairperson, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-03675 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Janice MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TULSA; Chuck Jordan; CPL Francetic; John Doe, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 16-5146

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed December 1, 2016

Janice Martin, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Robert E, Bacharach Circuit Judge

When Ms. Martin sued, the federal rules of civil procedure required her to serve the defendants within 120 days of service. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (2015).1 The plaintiff didn’t. So, over thirteen months after Ms. Martin sued, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to timely serve the defendants.

The plaintiff appeals, arguing that her underlying claim is valid. It may be, but the district court could not grant relief in the absence of service of process.

When 120 days elapsed from the filing of the complaint, the federal rules required the district court to either order dismissal without prejudice or order service within a specific-time-period. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (2015). The district court complied, ordering service by July 22, 2016, and warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice. Ms. Martin failed to take any action by July 22, 2016. So, over one month after the court’s deadline expired, the district court did what it had warned, dismissing the action without prejudice. This dismissal reflected a proper exercise of authority under the federal rules of civil procedure. Thus, we affirm.

*

 Oral argument would not be helpful in this appeal, As a result, we are deciding the appeal based on the briefs. *See*Fed, R. App. P, 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

> This order.and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.' But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed, R, App, P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R, 32.1(A).

1

. Roughly five months after Ms, Martin filed the complaint, the service deadline was shortened to 90 days. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (eff. Dec, 1/2015)
MILESTONE FRAGRANCE LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPENDABLE GLOBAL EXPRESS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2141

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 09, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated September 29, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ., concur.
#### James B. Wilson, Appellant, *v.*William T. Blodgett et al., Respondents.

*D. McMahon*for the appellant.

*J. H. JReynolds*for the respondents.

Argued and decided with *Kerr*v. *Blodgett, ante,*p. 62.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Humberto CAPETILLO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40604 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 13, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Humberto Capetillo, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Humberto Capetillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cape-tillo has not filed a timely response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, We concur with counsel’s assessment *335that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 'be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.