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



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002/SEC Rule 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Immune Response 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.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respect 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 we 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
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 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: November 13, 2006
    
    /s/ Joseph F. ONeillJoseph F. ONeillChief Executive Officer
No. 11-10177.

#### Clark *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 of UST Liquidating Corporation. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Barry S. Rosenstein, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ BARRY S. ROSENSTEIN

Barry S. Rosenstein
Co-Chairman of Board of Directors
November 12, 2002

17
[Cite as State v. Coffman , 2014-Ohio-4028.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

v. : No. 14AP-646 (C.P.C. No. 90CR-987) William Coffman, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. :

D E C I S I O N
Rendered on September 16, 2014

Ron O'Brien , Prosecuting Attorney, and Valerie Swanson

, for appellee.

William Coffman , pro se.

ON MOTION FOR DELAYED APPEAL

TYACK, J

. {¶ 1} William Coffman is pursuing a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.
The State of Ohio has filed a memorandum contra to the motion. {¶ 2} In 1990, Coffman was sentenced to a term of 8 to 25 years of incarceration following his plea of guilty to aggravated robbery. Almost 13 years later, he filed a motion requesting that his sentence be vacated on a theory he was actually guilty of robbery, not aggravated robbery. The trial court overruled the motion to vacate the sentence in
December 2013. {¶ 3} Coffman did not file a timely appeal, but instead filed his motion now before us some eight months after his time for a direct appeal had run. He claims, in essence, that the prison system received the trial court's ruling and failed to convey it to him or that the trial court never forwarded the ruling at all.No. 14AP-646 2

{¶ 4} A motion seeking to vacate a sentence, especially a sentence handed down following a guilty plea, is uniformly considered a form of petition for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court of Ohio has told us in State v. Nichols , 11 Ohio St.3d 40, that we cannot grant motions for delayed appeal on rulings on petitions for post-conviction
relief. {¶ 5} Further, we cannot verify Coffman's claim that the trial court's ruling was not forwarded to him. His claims in the memorandum in support of his motion that he received only two letters, both dated Dece mber 2014, is obviously impossible. He acknowledges that a family member told him the trial court had ruled months ago. {¶ 6} Perhaps most significantly, Coffman's trial court motion had no conceivable merit. As a petition for post-conviction relief, it was horribly late. Construed as a motion to set aside his guilty plea, he had no possibility of demonstrating a manifest injustice as required by Crim.R. 32.1 for a guilty plea to be set aside. {¶ 7} As a result, we deny the motion seeking leave to pursue a delayed appeal. Motion for delayed appeal denied.

DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.9


 


Director Fee Arrangements for 2014


 


Each director of MutualFirst Financial,
Inc. (the “Company”) also is a director of MutualBank. For 2014, each non-employee director will receive an annual
fee of $29,500 for serving on MutualBank’s Board of Directors as well as a Board meeting fee of $200 per meeting attended.
In addition to this annual fee, Wilbur R. Davis will receive a $6,000 annual fee for serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Linn Crull will receive a $5,000 annual fee for serving as Chairman of the Audit Committee, Jerry McVicker will receive a $3,000
annual fee for serving as Chairman of the Compensation Committee and Jon Kintner will receive a $3,000 annual fee for serving as
Chairman of the Trust Management Committee. Directors are not compensated for their service on the Company’s Board of Directors.


 


MutualBank maintains deferred compensation
arrangements with some directors that previously allowed them to defer all or a portion of their Board fees in order to receive
income when they are no longer active directors. Previously deferred amounts earn interest at the rate of 10 percent per year.
# C_2021128EN.01004602.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/46

---

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-108/21)

(2021/C 128/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as it continues to include the applicant as entry No 3 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as it continues to include the applicant as entry No 3 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as it continues to include the applicant as entry No 3 in the annex to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as it continues to include the applicant as entry No 3 in the annex to that regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.

---
Placeholder: Confidential Business Information item

Coolgas Inc. CBI Comment on 2-3-12

For more information please contact David Donaldson by phone at 202-343-9086 or by email at 

donaldson.david@epa.gov.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
         UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
         2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                                 <C>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS                     3-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000               JAN-01-1999
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                              7,236,000                 7,939,000
<SECURITIES>                        0                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                       24,573,000                15,593,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        409,000                   407,000
<INVENTORY>                         14,466,000                9,481,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    47,430,000                34,633,000
<PP&E>                              16,802,000                12,784,000
<DEPRECIATION>                      7,466,000                 6,019,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      64,113,000                46,950,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               24,417,000                13,036,000
<BONDS>                             0                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0                         0
<PREFERRED>                         0                         0
<COMMON>                            54,000                    54,000
<OTHER-SE>                          34,981,000                30,641,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        64,113,000                46,950,000
<SALES>                             22,332,000                18,253,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    22,332,000                18,253,000
<CGS>                               13,215,000                10,963,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       20,317,000                16,511,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (17,000)                  83,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  139,000                   57,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     1,893,000                 1,602,000
<INCOME-TAX>                        681,000                   561,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0                         0
<CHANGES>                           0                         0
<NET-INCOME>                        1,212,000                 1,041,000
<EPS-BASIC>                         .22                       .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .22                       .19


</TABLE>
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

            - taxonomy view
            - Discrimination 

# Discrimination 

# Discrimination 

                      -  August 30, 2021  Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Opens Investigations in Five States Regarding Prohibitions of Universal Indoor Masking  
Today, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened directed investigations in five states exploring whether statewide prohibitions on universal indoor masking discriminate against students with disabilities who are at heightened risk for severe illness from COVID-19 by preventing them from safely accessing in-person education.
  **Tags:**DisabilitiesDiscriminationCoronavirusSafe and Supportive SchoolsPress Releases

                    - « first
                    - ‹ previous
                    - 1
                    - 2

## How Do I Find...?

                      - Student loans, forgiveness
                      - Higher Education Rulemaking
                      - College accreditation
                      - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
                      - FERPA
                      - FAFSA
                      - 1098, tax forms
                      - More...

## Information About...

                      - Elevating Teaching
                      - Early Learning
                      - Engage Every Student
                      - Unlocking Career Success
                      - Cybersecurity

----

*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

          - Student Loans
          - Repaying Loans
          - Defaulted Loans
          - Loan Forgiveness
          - Loan Servicers
          - Grants & Programs
          - Apply for Pell Grants
          - Grants Forecast
          - Apply for a Grant

          - Laws & Guidance
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - Civil Rights
          - IDEA Website
          - Data & Research
          - Education Statistics
          - Postsecondary Education Data
          - ED Data Express
          - Nation's Report Card
          - What Works Clearinghouse
          - Open Data Platform
          - COVID Relief Data

          - About Us
          - Contact Us
          - ED Offices
          - Jobs
          - Press Releases
          - FAQs
          - Recursos en español
          - Budget, Performance
          - Privacy Program
          - Homeroom Blog

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information Quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Apr-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 May-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-1999

<CASH>                                         2,150,849
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,175,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                   210,000
<INVENTORY>                                    153,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,817,790
<PP&E>                                         5,214,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,248,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,125,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,983,926
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1,300,000
<PREFERRED>                                    93
<COMMON>                                       3,844
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,996,536)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,125,907
<SALES>                                        5,967,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,967,923
<CGS>                                          4,668,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,008,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (10,871)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             547,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,576,820)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,576,820)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                100,000
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,676,820)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)


</TABLE>
No. 11-9928.

#### Bruce *v.*Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Galen Lemar AMERSON; Frances Moorer Scott, Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, District of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-1406

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed February 7, 2018

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-02177-RBJ) (D. Colorado)

Galen Lemar Amerson, Pro Se

Frances Moorer Scott, Pro Se

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. *

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs-Appellants Frances Moorer Scott and Galen Lemar Amerson appeal from the district court’s judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissing the case with prejudice. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

The petitioners sought an order directing the clerk of the bankruptcy court to transfer that court’s files to the district court for the purpose of a de novo review of certain bankruptcy court orders. The district court viewed the petition as either an untimely attempt to appeal a bankruptcy order (and reconsideration) or a motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court. The district court also noted that the underlying issues had been resolved against petitioners. See In re Amerson, 839 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Scott v. King, — U.S. —, 138 S.Ct. 121, 199 L.Ed.2d 185 (2017). For substantially the same reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed, R, App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
|    |                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company. |

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |  |
| /S/    MALON WILKUS     |   |
| Name:                                       |    | Malon Wilkus |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | August 6, 2012 |   |
|                                        |   |
| /S/    JOHN R. ERICKSON |   |
| Name:                                       |    | John R. Erickson |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | August 6, 2012 |   |
# C_2021110EN.01003502.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/35

---

Action brought on 9 February 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Dolls’ head)

(Case T-84/21)

(2021/C 110/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd (Jiedong, China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mattel, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 2 459 701-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2020 in Case R 2021/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | upheld the appeal and annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the appeal and annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---