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

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, John D. Bair, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle DataSystems, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain 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 thisquarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report); 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 and the audit committee ofregistrant’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 andreport financial data; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: July 27, 2005
Septe m ber22;-20lb'ry.'':":"^ ^ "'"•- ' -^ ^ ^- . ^^; i :..::., : --v-^-- ^ " • ^''i;^';'T"' ^ - ^• - ^^"x-' - ^-Ha55;"0-^^:--^i U S Dcparlineii t

o f Transpoit^itio n Ms . Brnokf

i Chapman Transportatio nIndustr y Analys t 120 0 New)erseyAveS E Washington , D

C 2059 0 P U J C O Re : Sarasot aBradento nInternationa l Applicatio nfo r Smal l Communit y Air

Servic e Developmen t

Grant , Docke t

UOT-OST-2010-012 4 Dea r Ms . Chapman , Onbehal f

o f th e Manate e Kconomi c Developmen t Council , pleas e accep t

thi s lette r

in suppor t o f th e Sarasot aManate e Airpor t Authority' s gran t

applicatio nunde r

DOT OST-2010-U124 . W e full y suppor t

thi s gran t

applicatio nfo r

fundin g t o increas e an dstrengthe nth e airpoit' s maii<etin g initiatives . Th e nee dexist s du e t o th e devastatin g impac t th e B P oi l spil l i nth e Gul f

o f Mexic o ha s ha do nou r loca l businesse s an deconomy . Th e oi l spil l ha s cause dasever e dro p inGul f Coas t touris man dawardin g thi s gran t i s paramoun t

t o returnin g passenge r level s i nou r

regio nt o histori c levels . Additionally , w e fully suppor t th e awar do f

gran t fund s fo r

th e purchas e o f

airpor t groun dhandlin g equipnricn t (GSE ) whic hwil l lowe r operatin g cost s an dmak e ou r airpor t an dcommunit y mor e competitiv e wit hlarge r airport s i nth e region . Than k yo u for includin g thi s lette r

wit hth e Sarasot aManate e Gran t Applicatio nan d fo r considerin g ou r

suppor t whe nevaluatin g thei r request . Sincerely , Erlc.Basinger-CEc D Executiv e Directo r 

# l^^ft^KliiS^ft^te^^ftSfiMSW^ftfcliMiftlSS^ ^
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6316 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6316

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an expiration date 
 of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(i) Expiration of Committee Resolutions.--
            ``(1) In general.--Unless a lease is awarded or a 
        construction, alteration, repair, design, or acquisition 
        project is initiated not later than 5 years after the 
        resolution approvals adopted by the Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives or the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
        pursuant to subsection (a), such resolutions shall be deemed 
        expired.
            ``(2) Application.--This subsection shall only apply to 
        resolutions approved after the date of enactment of this 
        subsection.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6316

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an expiration date 
 of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, 
                        and for other purposes.
```
#### John Redpath et al., Apellants, *v.*Thomas T. Vaughan et al., Respondents.

(Argued May 12, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

*656Action to recover damages to a cargo of sugar in defendants’ custody as common carriers. The bill of lading excepted “ dangers of the sea.” The boat was towed upon a hidden stump, a recent obstruction in the channel of the Hudson river, and sunk. Held, the loss occurred by a danger of the sea, and defendants were not liable.

*Livingston K. Miller*for the appellants.

*Joseph Potter*for the respondents.'

Gray, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Owings & Davis vs. Iles.

October 7,

Error to the Bath Circuit; Silas W. Robbins, Judge.

*Conveyances, Trustees Statutes. Evidence. Onus Probandi of Towns.*

Ejectment. Case 100,

Question staged.

i’or a deed of conveyance by the tiustees of a town, established under the general law, to pass ttie title to the lots, *it*most be executed by a aiajorily, and the party offering the conveyance, inusl shew it.

Judge Owsley

delivered tho Opinion *of*the Court.

This case turns upon the correctness of the decision of the court below, in admitting as evidence to the jury, a deed introduced by lies, and which purports to have been made by Thomas Triplett, Daniel Conner, Wm. Hope and Joshua Philips, as trustees of the town of Ov/ingsville.

The deed appears to he in due. form, and to have been admitted to record in proper time, and was undoubtedly admissible evidence, if the persons by whom it was made possessed sufficient authority to convey the title to the, lot in contest. Rut to possess such authority, it was-necessary for Triplett, Couner, Hope and Philips, at the time of making the deed, not only to he trustees of the town, but to form a majority of the persons who were then trustees; for, by the general law upon the subject of towns, and under which the town of Qwingsville was established, after the town was established and its trustees appointed, the title of the lots became vested in the trustees, and less than a majority of the trustees are not authorised to convey the *title.*Judging, however, from the facts before the court, upon the application to exclude the deed from the jury, it is apparent, that it was made by less than a majority of the trustees. The county court appear *287tó have made several orders upon the subject of trustees for the the town, and by adverting to them, it will be seen, that there were nine persons who bad been, before the date of the deed, appointed trustees, neither of whom is proved to have died, resigned, or in any way been removed, so that less than five were incompetent to convey the title of the lot.

*Triplett*for plaintiff; *Mayes*for defendant.

Tiie deed ought, therefore, to have been excluded from going in evidence to the'jury, and consequently, the judgment must be reversed, with cost, the cause remanded to the court below, and further proceedings there had, not inconsistent with this opinion.
14274

#### SAWYER v. UNITED CIGAR STORES *ET AL.*

(185 S. E., 38)

*71September, 1935.

*Messrs. C. T. Graydon*and /. *B. McLaughlin,*for appellant,

*Messrs. Tompkins S' Tompkins,*for respondent,

April 8, 1936.

*Per curiam.*

This is an action for damages on account of certain alleged slanderous words spoken of and concerning the plaintiff by the defendant, William G. Sigmon, as the agent and representative of the United Cigar Stores. The complaint alleges that Sigmon was the manager of his codefendant’s store in the City of Columbia and was charged, among other things, with the authority of operating and protecting a slot or amusement machine; that about November 19, 1934, the plaintiff entered this store for the purpose of making purchases, and was engaged in playing the amusement machine when the defendant Sigmon, acting in the scope of his authority, approached him and said, in the presense of a number of people: “Sawyer, you can’t play that machine that way. You are cheating it. You get out of here and stay out.” It was also alleged by innuendo that the defendants, by these statements, intended to and did charge the plaintiff with the commission of a crime. Only general damages were asked for.

*72On trial of the case, Judge Oxner granted a nonsuit on the ground that the words used were not slanderous *per se,*that there was no evidence whatsoever that .they were spoken of the plaintiff in connection with his business — he was an insurance salesman and agent — and that there was no allegation or proof of special damages. From the Court’s order this appeal is taken.

While we have carefully considered the several questions raised by the exceptions, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them at length. It is sufficient to say that an examination of the record and of the authorities cited clearly shows that the trial Judge was entirely correct in his holdings and conclusions, and that the nonsuit was properly granted. Under the pleadings and the evidence, as stated by him, it appears that this case is ruled by *Galloway v. Cox,*172 S. C., 101, 172 S. E., 761. See, also, *Bell v. Clinton Oil Mill,*129 S. C., 242, 124 S. E., 7; Newell on Slander and Libel, 123, 17 R. C. L., 290.

All exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
#### Aaron RAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug LARGE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-55835

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 21, 2017 *

Filed October 4, 2017

*517Aaron Raiser, Pro Se

Robert David Goldberg, Esquire, Attorney, The Clark Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argu*517ment. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Aaron Raiser appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his civil rights complaint to add claims of fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and false promise, arising from his expulsion from Ventura College of Law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to deny leave to amend. *Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

Because Raiser cannot allege facts sufficient to establish promissory fraud as against defendant Large, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Raiser’s motion to amend his complaint. Thus, his proposed amendments, each of which sound in fraud, would have been futile. *See id.*at 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile[.]”); see *also Lazar v. Superior Court,*12 Cal.4th 631, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 909 P.2d 981, 985 (1996) (setting forth the elements of promissory fraud).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Raiser’s June 23, 2014 motion, which the district court construed as a motion for reconsideration, because Raiser failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal. *See Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

Raiser’s request to certify the questions at issue to the California Supreme Court, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32(a)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                       OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB
                         OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
                    FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2003

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.
(the "Issuer"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2003.

I, John D. Bair, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of October 22, 2003.


                                /s/ John D. Bair
                             -----------------------
                             Chief Executive Officer
#### Sadie Strauss, Resp’t, *v.*David Strauss, App’lt.

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

*Filed May 21, 1891.)*

Divorce—Application for increased alimony.

While the court has power to increase alimony in actions for divorce, such increase should not be granted unless new facts are shown which did not exist or were not known to the applicant when the former order was made; otherwise such an application is in fact an appeal from the discretion of one justice to that of another.

Appeal from order increasing the alimony to be paid to plaintiff and allowing her an additional sum for counsel fee.

*Edward J. Maxwell,*for app’lt; *Westbrook, Borst & Perkins (Z. S. Westbrook,*of counsel), for resp’t.

Learned, P. J.

This is an action for limited divorce. An order was made in November, 1889, for thirty dollars per month alimony, by Justice Fish, together with $250 for counsel fees. An order was made in January, 1891, for an increase to fifty dollars per month and for further counsel fee of $100. From that part which allows additional alimony the defendant appeals.

There is no doubt of the power of the court to increase the alimony. .But an increase should not be granted unless new facts are shown which did not exist or were not known to the applicant when the former order was made. Otherwise the application becomes practically an appeal to another justice from the discretion exercised by the justice who granted the former order. In the former order in this present case the plaintiff asked for fifty dollai’s per month, but the justice held that thirty dollars would bs sufficient.

The affidavits on which the "second order was granted are those *479of the plaintiff and of her attorney. The latter only touches the question of counsel fee, which is not before us.

Looking, then, at the affidavit of the plaintiff, we find no facts stated which show any change of condition since the first order, except that defendant has repaid to plaintiff $3,000, property belonging to her. She states that she is in debt and needs clothing for herself and her child, and that she is unable to support herself out of the allowance. But assuming, as we must, that the alimony granted by Judge Fish was proper and sufficient at that time, no subsequent facts are shown to justify the increase. Indeed the possession of $3,000 has enabled the plaintiff, to some degree, to support herself.

We think that no additional alimony should be granted in such cases except on clear evidence that new or previously unknown facts require it

The part of the order appealed from is reversed, without costs to either party.

Landon and Mayham, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued November 1 9 , 201 9

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 1 9

- 00 455

- C V

——————————— IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AU TOMOBILE INSURANCE C OMPANY , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

ME MO RANDUM OP I NION

Relator, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company , has filed a
petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to h ave this Court vacate the respondent

dist rict court ’ s order which denied a plea in abatement

. 1

1 The underlying case is Giselle Fuller, Individually, and as Next F ri end of A.S. and S.S., minors, Joseph Siller and Egla Fuller v. Fredis Leonel Ruiz Natare n and State Farm Automobile Insurance Company
, cause num ber 2019

- 14015 , pending in the 270th Di strict Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honor able Dedra Davis presidi ng

.2

We deny relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP . P.

52.8(a). We dismiss all other pending mot ions a s moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and H ightower

.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6022 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6022

   To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt from CFATS 
       regulations certain propane tanks, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2023

 Mr. Burlison (for himself and Mr. Latta) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt from CFATS 
       regulations certain propane tanks, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Propane Accessibility and Regulatory 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM CFATS REGULATIONS OF CERTAIN PROPANE TANKS.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may 
be necessary to exempt from any CFATS regulation (as such term is 
defined in section 2101 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
621)) any propane tank with a capacity of up to 126,000 pounds of 
propane.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lila Longson, Suing on Behalf of Herself and Other Stockholders Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Beaux-Arts Apartments, Inc., Respondent.

Argued April 13, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*847
      *Mortimer H. Michaels*for appellant.

*Milton M. Bergerman*and *Joseph Cohen*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
HMSC Executive Severance Plan Schedule A Participants



 Exhibit 10.16(b) 

HORACE MANN SERVICE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN 
 SCHEDULE A PARTICIPANTS 

 

			
	NAME OR TITLE	  	
                      
                          EFFECTIVE DATE
                                  
               OF

                      
                          PARTICIPATION*

	
	 TIER I PARTICIPANTS

	 None
	  	
	
	 TIER II PARTICIPANTS

	 EVP and CFO
	  	                          
                      June 1, 2012**
	 EVP and Chief Marketing Officer
	  	                          
                      June 1, 2012**
	 EVP, Property and Casualty
	  	                          
                      June 1, 2012**
	 EVP, Annuity, Life, Group
	  	                          
                      March 15, 2012
	
	 TIER III PARTICIPANTS

	 SVP, HR & Administrative Operations
	  	                          
                      June 1, 2012**

  

	*	 Subject to acceptance within 30 days of the effective date of participation 



**      Designates an individual who, as of the Effective Date of Participation, is covered by a Severance
Agreement, as defined in Section 4.3(c)(i) of the Plan. 
 Last updated: May 23, 2012