alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

** **

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, John N. Bonfiglio, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of The Immune Response Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respect the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)          designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

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

 

(c)          disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s  internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)          all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

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

 

 
| Date: May 12, 2004 |   |                    |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|               |   |                    |
|               |   | /s/ John N. Bonfiglio   |   |
|               |   | John N. Bonfiglio       |
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Barbara NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ENTERPRISE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-1045

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 16, 2018

Barbara Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick McQuillan Aul, COZEN O’CON-NOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

*317Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Newman appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action seeking relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, *see*29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2012), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of tribal sovereign immunity. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Newman that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). “[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” *Makdessi v. Fields,*789 F.3d 126, 131 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see Martin v. Duffy,*858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017). Newman’s objections were nonspecific and did not address the issue of trial sovereign immunity, the sole basis for the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Thus, she has waived appellate review of that dispositive issue by failing to file specific objections after receiving adequate notice.

Additionally, on appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Newman’s informal brief also fails to address the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. As she does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Newman has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# C_2022002EN.01004701.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/47

---

Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Paraskevaidis v Council and Commission

(Case T-698/21)

(2022/C 2/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Paraskevaidis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas and D.-A. Pappa, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 4 February 2021 of the Commission and the instalment plan of 9 March 2021 and the decision of the Council of 19 July 2021, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Commission was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 February 2021 of the Commission and the instalment plan of 9 March 2021 and the decision of the Council of 19 July 2021, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Commission was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning; and

| — | order the defendants to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions infringed the principle of legality. It is also alleged that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 (1) was not applicable for the period the applicant claimed the educational allowance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions infringed the principle of legality. It is also alleged that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 (1) was not applicable for the period the applicant claimed the educational allowance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was illegally applied retroactively. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was illegally applied retroactively.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was adopted by the Heads of Administration beyond their remit. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was adopted by the Heads of Administration beyond their remit.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion infringes Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion infringes Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

---

(1)  Revised Conclusion No 237/05 on the education allowance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations approved by the Heads of Administration at their 284th meeting on 1 July 2020.

---
June 24, 2015

Mr. Robert Augustine 106 Valleyview Bardstown, KY 40004

Dear Mr. Augustine:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 5, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2126), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.2

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Argued and submitted March 7,

affirmed April 12,

petition for review denied August 3, 2017 (361 Or 800)

#### Elaine HIGGINS, *Plaintiff-Appellant, v.*STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, *Defendant-Respondent.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

15CV12920; A161906

392 P3d 391

Willard E. Merkel argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Merkel & Associates.

Thomas M. Christ argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Flynn, Judge pro tempore.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Robinson v. Tri-Met,*277 Or App 60, 370 P3d 864 (2016); *Spearman v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.,*276 Or App 114, 366 P3d 821, *rev allowed,*359 Or 847 (2016).
No. 11-1243.

#### Deep *v.*Clinton Central School District et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0245

_____________________________
P AUL S INKFIELD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

. October 30, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , R OBERTS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tall ahassee
, for Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LASCELLES LINTON, a.k.a. Anthony

Clark, a.k.a. John Doe, a.k.a. Liascelle

Malciolm, a.k.a. Roy Moore,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73252

Agency No. A074-305-703

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Lascelles Linton, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal

FILED

MAY 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

determinations, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and

review de novo claims of due process violations, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424

F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Linton’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights by failing

to fully consider and weigh the evidence in his case is unsupported by the record. 

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for petitioner

to prevail on a due process claim). 

The BIA found that Linton failed to establish that the police were unable or

unwilling to protect him. The record does not compel a different conclusion,

therefore his withholding of removal claim fails. Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d

1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (although police were unable to solve crimes against

petitioner evidence did not compel finding that crimes were committed by forces

the government was unable or unwilling to control because police took reports and

investigated petitioner’s complaints).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Linton failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if removed to

Jamaica. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. 

2 12-73252
Linton’s contentions that the agency erred in determining certain convictions

are crimes involving moral turpitude and aggravated felonies are not properly

before us, because the agency did not make such determinations or deny Linton’s

applications for relief on these grounds.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-73252
# C_2021182EN.01006601.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/66

---

Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Bustos v EUIPO — Bicicletas Monty (motwi)

(Case T-159/21)

(2021/C 182/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Dante Ricardo Bustos (Wenling, China) (represented by: A. Lorente Berges, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bicicletas Monty, SA (Sant Feliú de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union figurative mark motwi — Application No 17 802 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2021 in Case R 289/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the registration of the European Union mark No 17 802 158 motwi in respect of the goods applied for in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the registration of the European Union mark No 17 802 158 motwi in respect of the goods applied for in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement;

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 11

                SUNRISE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                              October 31,
                                                      -------------------------
                                                        1997             1996
================================================================================
PRIMARY:

Average Common Shares Outstanding,                    3,794,005       2,982,968

Effect of weighting shares:

  Issuance of Common Stock                                    0               0

  Employee stock options outstanding                     17,369          18,315

  Assumed Exercise of Warrants                           42,611          13,978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighted Average Number of Common
 Shares and Common Share
 Equivalents Outstanding                              3,853,985       3,015,261
================================================================================

Net Income Available for
 Common Stock                                        $   28,429     $      (473)
================================================================================

Net Income per Common Share
 and Common Share Equivalent                         $     0.01     $     (0.00)
================================================================================
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 269 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 269

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the heroism, sacrifice, 
  and service of former South Vietnamese commandos in connection with 
        United States armed forces during the Vietnam conflict.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 1998

 Ms. Sanchez submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the heroism, sacrifice, 
  and service of former South Vietnamese commandos in connection with 
        United States armed forces during the Vietnam conflict.

Whereas South Vietnamese commandos were recruited by the United States as part 
        of OPLAN 34A or its predecessor or OPLAN 35 from 1961 to 1970;
Whereas the commandos conducted covert operations in North Vietnam during the 
        Vietnam conflict;
Whereas many of the commandos were captured and imprisoned by North Vietnamese 
        forces, some for as long as 20 years;
Whereas the commandos served and fought proudly during the Vietnam conflict; and
Whereas many of the commandos lost their lives serving in operations conducted 
        by the United States during the Vietnam conflict: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress recognizes and honors the former South Vietnamese 
commandos for their heroism, sacrifice, and service in connection with 
United States armed forces during the Vietnam conflict.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
the undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify to my
knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 of the Company fully complies, in all material
respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

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


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer

Date: August 4, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM J. RAY
MCDERMOTT'S JUNE 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         201,242
<SECURITIES>                                    76,296
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,727
<INVENTORY>                                     89,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               745,915
<PP&E>                                       1,183,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                 835,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,519,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          603,708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              409
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                     529,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,519,800
<SALES>                                        464,582
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               464,582
<CGS>                                          441,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  441,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,137
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,973
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,973
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>