alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.4



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Stephen D. Allison, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Gensym Corporation;



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. [Intentionally Omitted]



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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) [Reserved];



(c) 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



(d) 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(s) 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 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 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: September 22, 2005 |  | /s/ STEPHEN D. ALLISON 
|                         |  | Stephen D. Allison     
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COTELLIGENT GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1                                          
<CASH>                                          1764
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40471
<ALLOWANCES>                                     683
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               43547
<PP&E>                                          9516
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 56382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29798
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          98
<OTHER-SE>                                     26136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   56382
<SALES>                                        49775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               49775
<CGS>                                          35128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3211
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1959
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1959
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Infrastructure Development.                    

*Date:*                         March 24, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 1, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04620 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### HAMILTON NATIONAL BANK OF CHATTANOOGA, Executor of Estate of W. R. Long, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. HAMILTON NATIONAL BANK OF CHATTANOOGA, Executor of Estate of W. R. Long, Deceased, Plaintiff, Cross-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 16612, 16613.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1966.

Myron C. Baum, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Melva M. Graney, David I. Granger, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief; John H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Charles J. Gearhiser, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., of counsel, for United States.

Sizer Chambliss, and Hunter D. Heggie, Chattanooga, Tenn., Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie, Chattanooga, Tenn., of counsel, for Hamilton Nat. Bank.

*555Before WEICK, Chief Judge, O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and THORNTON, Senior District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Thomas P. Thornton, Senior Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This ease involves questions of federal estate taxation. The decedent in his will created a trust whereby the income therefrom was given to his son for life, and upon the son’s death one-fourth of the remainder was given to charities if the son died without issue. The other three-fourths of the remainder was given to the charities outright.

Two issues were presented. The first one was as to the life expectancy of the son who died without issue within two years from the date of his father’s death. Determination of this issue was important because it affected the value of the charitable remainder. The second issue was whether the possibility of the son’s having issue was so remote as to be negligible. If it was, then the estate was entitled to a charitable deduction for the one-fourth interest.

The case was tried before a jury in the District Court, which made special findings that the son’s life expectancy was ten years and that the possibility of his having issue was so remote as to be negligible.

The Government contends that these special findings were not supported by substantial evidence; that the trial judge should have determined both issues as a matter of law; and that the Court erred in not directing a verdict in its favor. No question was raised as to the Court’s instructions to the jury.

Upon consideration of the record, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to require submission of the factual issues to the jury, and that the Court did not err in denying the Government’s motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This evidence was substantial and was detailed in the well considered opinion of District Judge Wilson, rendered upon the Government’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We find no merit in the cross-appeal.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in both cases on Judge Wilson’s opinion.
#### Abel Alejandro ARREOLA-CARRILLO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 15-60891 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 19, 2017

Vinesh Patel, Vinesh Patel Law Firm, Dallas, TX, Francisco Alvillar, Alvillar Law, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner

*877Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abel Alejandro Arreola-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because he does not challenge the denial of CAT relief, he has abandoned the issue. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

An alien may be granted asylum if he has “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An alien does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if he could avoid persecution by internally relocating and it would be reasonable to do so. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2)(H).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. *See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder,*560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). Even if Arreola-Carrillo has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his membership in his proposed alternative particular social group, the evidence does not compel a finding that he cannot reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid future harm, particularly in light of the fact that he relocated to the city of Morelia and lived there without incident from 2010 until 2013. *See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,*263 F.3d 442, 446 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA failed to consider the § 1208.13(b)(3) factors, conducted an incomplete analysis, or improperly shifted the burden because Arreola-Carrillo failed to exhaust the issues by presenting them in a motion for reconsideration. *See Omari n Holder,*562 F.3d 314, 318, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009).

As Arreola-Carrillo cannot meet the requirements for asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent requirements for withholding of removal. *See Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 186 n.2 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### ROYAL ALLIANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lorelei MOONEY, as trustee and ON BEHALF OF the Herbert and Helen SCHWEIGER Trust dated November 5, 2002; Robert Schmiedeke, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56468

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 29, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed September 14, 2017

David Marcus Axelrad, Attorney, Peder Kristian Batalden, Esquire, Attorney, John F. Querio, Joshua C. McDaniel, Esquire, Attorney, Horvitz & Levy LLP, Burbank, CA, Elizabeth A. Sperling, Esquire, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Theodore J. Sawicki, Esquire, Attorney, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Catanzarite Law Corporation, Anaheim, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,* Chief District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (“Royal”) appeals the district court’s grant of Lorelei *538Mooney and Robert Schmiedeke’s (“Claimants”) Motion to Compel Arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand to the district court for entry of judgment in Royal’s favor.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) requires members to arbitrate disputes with their customers. The sole question on appeal is whether the Claimants are “customers” of Royal for purposes of FINRA Rule 12200. This is a question of fact that we review for clear error. *Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,*771 F.3d 559, 564 (9th Cir. 2014).

Claimants’ allegations arise out of real estate securities that were purchased by their trusts. Although Claimants first opened their accounts with United Securities Alliance, Inc. (“United”), they allege that they are entitled to arbitration because all of United’s customer accounts were transferred to Royal pursuant to a 2007 contract. The purchase agreement is ambiguous as to whether United transferred Claimants’ accounts to Royal, and Claimants produced no evidence beyond the words of the contract that their accounts were ever transferred from United to Royal.

As the parties seeking to compel arbitration, Claimants bore the burden of showing that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Because Claimants failed to carry that burden, we reverse and direct entry of judgment for Royal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Hugh Kelly, Resp’t, *v.*The City of Rochester, App’lt.

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

*Filed June 2, 1891.)*

Negligence—Inadequate damages

In an action to recover damages for negligence of a corporation in permitting a sidewalk to become unsafe from ice upon which, plaintiff fell and was injured the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages of fifteen dollars. The undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff fractured two ribs, suffered pain and was disabled for several months. Held, that the court properly set aside the verdict upon the ground that the damages were inadequate.

Appeal by the defendant from an order made on the minutes of the court at the circuit, granting a new trial to the plaintiff on payment of the costs of the circuit (Monroe, June, 1888.)

*H. J.*Sullivan, for app’lt; *E. L.*Adams, for resp’t.

Dwight, P. J.

The new trial was granted on the ground of the insufficiency of the damages awarded by the verdict of the jury. The action was for injuries resulting to the plaintiff from a fall on a sidewalk of the defendant, rendered unsafe by ice which the defendant negligently suffered to accumulate thereon. The two issues of the defendant’s negligence and of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, were fully tried and were submitted to the jury, on the second day. of the trial, and the jury having been out all night came into court on the third day and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, for fifteen dollars.

The undisputed evidence on the question of damages, showed) that the plaintiff, as a result of his fall, sustained a fracture of’ two ribs; suffered great pain in his side at the time and for some. *798months afterwards; was wholly disabled for labor for several months and that the pain and disability continued, in a measure, down to the time of the trial. There was also evidence tending to show that a weakness of the kidneys and incontinence of urine from which the plaintiff had suffered from a time shortly after the accident and down to the time of the trial, was due to the same cause.

The verdict of the jury found both the issues tried, in favor of the plaintiff, and that finding entitled him to full compensation for the injury which he had sustained. For that purp®se the verdict was grossly inadequate and must have been the result of unworthy and improper considerations prevailing with the jury. The discretion of the trial court was correctly exercised in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial to the plaintiff. The terms imposed as a condition of the order were also, probably, within the discretion of the court, and no appeal has been taken from that part of the order.

The order appealed from must be affirmed and, under the discretion granted to the appellate court by § 3239 of the Code, with costs, absolutely, to the respondent

Macomber, J., concurs.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 05/05-0340]

Notice is hereby given that Bayview Capital Partners IV, L.P., 301 Carlson Parkway, Suite 325, Minnetonka, MN 55305, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, is seeking an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Bayview Capital Partners IV, L.P. is seeking a written exemption from SBA for a proposed financing to The Sierra Holding Company LLC dba Fenix Group, 11400 West 47th Street, Minnetonka, MN 55343.

                    The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) of the Regulations because The Sierra Holding Company LLC dba Fenix Group is an Associate of Bayview Capital Partners IV, L.P. because Associate Bayview Capital Partners III, L.P. owns a greater than ten percent interest in The Sierra Holding Company LLC dba Fenix Group, therefore this transaction is considered                     *Financing which constitute conflicts of interest*                     requiring SBA's prior written exemption.                

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

U.S. Small Business Administration.

Bailey G. DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2022-04231 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert D. Marcus, certify
that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Time Warner Cable Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 27, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. Marcus
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                |  | Robert D. Marcus                                                            
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) Time Warner Cable Inc.