alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

I, Burton M. Tansky, certifythat:

 

1.    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Neiman Marcus Group,Inc.;

 

2.    Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)    disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s first fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)    allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March 8, 2004

 
|   |   | /s/    BURTON M. TANSKY         |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |   | **Burton M. Tansky**                      |
|   |   | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |
|        |        |                                           |  |

 

1

----
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**PUBLICARD,
      INC.**


**AND
      SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
      S-3, File Nos. 333-80447, 333-87597, 333-89917, 333-33788 and 333-53204 and
      Registration Statements on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-88876, 333-43466 and 333-43468
      of PubliCARD, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2006, relating to the
      consolidated financial statements of PubliCARD, Inc. as of December 31, 2005
      and
      2004, and for each of the three years ended December 31, 2005 (which report
      expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
      to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern) and the consolidated
      financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15 appearing in this
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of PubliCARD, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
      2005.







/s/Deloitte
      & Touche LLP





New
      York,
      New York


March
      30,
      2006
# C_2023179EN.01004301.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/43

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2023 — Mariani v Parliament

(Case T-196/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Decision excluding from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of the term of office - Measure of internal organisation of the work of the Parliament - No effect on the conditions under which the mandate of a Member of Parliament is exercised - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 301939 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of the European Parliament of 3 March 2022 to exclude him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Thierry Mariani shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Thierry Mariani shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.7

<TABLE>
<S>     <C>                             <C>
H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
333 Clay Street, Suite 3850, Houston, Texas 77002 . TEL. (713) 739-1000 . FAX (713) 739-6112
</TABLE>


                   CONSENT OF H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

We hereby consent to the use of the name H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and of
references to H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and to the inclusion of and
references to our reports, or information contained therein, dated March 10,
2000, and dated March 9, 2001, prepared for Stocker Resources, Inc. in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 of Plains Exploration & Production Company
for the filing dated March 26, 2003.

                                              H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                              Texas Registration Number F-000637



                                              by: /s/ SYLVIA CASTILLEJA
                                                 -------------------------------
                                              Sylvia Castilleja, P.E.
                                              Vice President

March 25, 2003
Houston, Texas
No. 11-10362.

#### Millbrook *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for the intentional torts of prison guards when they are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to ‘execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law/ ”
# C_2023271EN.01000701.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — YQ, RJ v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

(Case C-287/22, (1) Getin Noble Bank (Suspension or performance of a credit agreement))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Mortgage loan indexed to a foreign currency - Article 6(1) - Article 7(1) - Application for interim measures - Suspension of performance of the loan agreement - Ensuring full effectiveness of the restitutory effect)

(2023/C 271/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YQ, RJ

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,

must be interpreted as precluding national case-law according to which a national court may dismiss an application for the grant of interim measures lodged by a consumer seeking the suspension, pending a final decision on the invalidity of the loan agreement concluded by that consumer on the ground that that loan agreement contains unfair terms, of the payment of the monthly instalments due under that loan agreement, where the grant of those interim measures is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 318. 22.8.2022.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.



|Dated: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/Edward Munden
Edward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





















1
AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF 1997 ANNUAL AND SPECIAL CASH BONUS


     Ralston  Purina Company ("Company") and  NAME agree that, of the $ ANNUAL
                                             -----                    --------
Annual Bonus and $ SPECIAL Special Bonus awarded to Participant under the 1997
                 ---------
Annual  and  Special  Cash  Bonus Award Program, $ DEFERRED shall be deferred,
                                                 ----------
effective  November  1,  1997, as requested by Participant, into the option or
options  available  under  the  Deferred  Compensation  Plan for Key Employees
("Plan"),  which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference
herein.

     Pursuant  to  Participant's  request,  the  following  amounts  have been
deferred  for  Participant  in  the  manner  set  forth  below:

     (1)          EQUITY  OPTION  -
                  -----------------

(a)      $ Equity in a Deferred Stock Equivalent Account in Participant's name
         --------
under  the  Equity  Option  as  set  forth  in  Section  2.2  of  the  Plan.

(b)       $ Match in a Deferred Stock Equivalent Account in Participant's name
          -------
representing Company Matching Deferral (25% of amount listed in 1(a) above) as
set  forth  in  Section  2.2(b)  of  the  Plan.


          (2)      SHORT-TERM VARIABLE INTEREST OPTION - $ Short in a Deferred
                   -----------------------------------   -------
Cash  Account  in Participant's name under the Variable Interest Option as set
forth in Section 2.3 of the Plan; provided, however, that, notwithstanding any
provision  to  the  contrary  contained  in  the Plan, amounts attributable to
deferrals  into  the  Short-Term  Variable  Interest  Option  shall be paid to
Participant  in  January  1998.

          (3)        LONG-TERM VARIABLE INTEREST OPTION - $ Long in a Deferred
                     ----------------------------------   ------
Cash  Account  in Participant's name under the Variable Interest Option as set
forth  in  Section  2.3  of  the  Plan.

     Participant's  deferral  hereunder is pursuant to the Plan and is subject
in all respects to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and of the Plan.
No  other  communications  or  representations, written or oral, made prior or
subsequent  to  this Agreement shall be deemed to amend or modify the terms of
this  deferral  except  by  an  agreement  in  writing executed by the parties
subsequent  to  the  date  of  this  Agreement,  expressly  consenting to such
amendment or modification.  Participant hereby waives any rights, and releases
Company  from  any  claim,  based  on  any  such  prior  communications  or
representations,  if  any.


ACCEPTED:                              RALSTON  PURINA  COMPANY


______________________________               By:______________________________
     Participant                                    C. S. Sommer
		                                   Vice  President  and
                 			                  Director,  Administration
______________________________
     Date

i:sec\10k-97\x10xviii.doc
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10621-10622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5605]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB review; comment request

February 28, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

[[Page 10622]]

    Special Request: In order to complete the survey described below on 
March 21, 1997 the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by March 7, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
survey, please contact the FMS Clearance Officer at the address listed 
below.

Financial Management Service (FMS)

    OMB Number: New.
    Form Number: None.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Title: Socioeconomic and Demographic Study (Telephone Survey of 
Federal Benefit Program Check Recipients).
    Description: Public Law 104-134 directs Treasury to study the 
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of those who do not have 
Direct Deposit and determine how best to increase usage. The focus 
groups will aid in the design of a telephone survey which will support 
the development of a Direct /deposit marketing/media plan. Respondents 
will be individuals who currently receive Federal Government program 
payments by check.
    Respondent: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,008.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one time).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 402 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Jacqueline R. Perry (301) 344-8577, Financial 
Management Service, 3361-L 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5605 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth J. SMITH, a.k.a. K. J. Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30063

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

. Michelle Kerin, Kelly A. Zusraan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Helen Lenore Cooper, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ruben L. Iniguez, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. :

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth-J. Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for early termination of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Smith contends that the district court procedurally erred in denying his motion for early termination of probation without providing an adequate explanation for its rejection of his arguments. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Rangel,*697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that there is none. The district court held a hearing on Smith’s motion. The record reflects that it considered all of the parties’ arguments, including Smith’s arguments regarding his post-sentencing achievements. The court denied Smith’s motion because, despite his accomplishments while on probation, Smith had not yet accomplished the original goals of his sentence, including paying restitution. The explanation given was enough to “permit meaningful appellate review,” *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). A more thorough explanation of why the court rejected each of Smith’s arguments was not required. *See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana,*714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2022207EN.01001401.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/14

---

Appeal brought on 10 February 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-546/20, Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

(Case C-101/22 P)

(2022/C 207/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, M. Ilkova, O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sopra Steria Benelux, Unisys Belgium

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside paragraphs 52 to 57, 60, 61, 66, 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside paragraphs 52 to 57, 60, 61, 66, 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal;

| — | dismiss the action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action for annulment;

| — | order Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium to pay the costs of the present proceedings before the Court of Justice and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium to pay the costs of the present proceedings before the Court of Justice and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

The first ground alleges that the General Court erred in law by qualifying the letter of the applicants at first instance of 10 July 2020 as an ‘express request’ for the reasons which led the contracting authority not to consider the successful tender as appearing to be abnormally low.

The second ground alleges a distortion of the facts, by incorrectly assessing the content of the Commission’s reply of 20 July 2020.

The third ground alleges failure to have regard to the scope of the contracting authority’s obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation where the contracting authority considers that the successful tender does not appear to be abnormally low.

---
# C_2022222EN.01001102.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 February 2022 — LACD GmbH v BB Sport GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-133/22)

(2022/C 222/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LACD GmbH

Defendant: BB Sport GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Can any other requirements not related to conformity set out in the guarantee statement within the meaning of Article 2, point 14, of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) and any other requirements not related to conformity within the meaning of Article 2, point 12, of Directive (EU) 2019/771 (2) apply where circumstances specific to the consumer, in particular his or her subjective attitude towards the item purchased (in this case, the consumer’s personal satisfaction with the item purchased), have a bearing on the guarantor’s obligation, without it being necessary that those personal circumstances relate to the condition or features of the item purchased? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can any other requirements not related to conformity set out in the guarantee statement within the meaning of Article 2, point 14, of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) and any other requirements not related to conformity within the meaning of Article 2, point 12, of Directive (EU) 2019/771 (2) apply where circumstances specific to the consumer, in particular his or her subjective attitude towards the item purchased (in this case, the consumer’s personal satisfaction with the item purchased), have a bearing on the guarantor’s obligation, without it being necessary that those personal circumstances relate to the condition or features of the item purchased?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Must it be possible to establish the absence of requirements based on the circumstances specific to the consumer (in this case, the consumer’s satisfaction with the goods purchased) in the light of objective circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Must it be possible to establish the absence of requirements based on the circumstances specific to the consumer (in this case, the consumer’s satisfaction with the goods purchased) in the light of objective circumstances?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC (OJ 2019 L 136, p. 28), as corrected (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 66).

---