alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                     Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

      I, Richard M. Haddock, certify that:

      1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 (this "Amendment")
of Drexler Technology Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("registrant");

      2.  Based on my knowledge, this Amendment 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 Amendment;
and

      3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Amendment, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this Amendment.

Dated: September 29, 2003


By:   /s/ Richard M. Haddock
      --------------------------------
      Richard M. Haddock
      Co-Chief Executive Officer
      (Co-Principal Executive Officer)

                                       64
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eric Haskell, Acting Interim Chief Executive Officer of SunComWireless, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SunCom Wireless, Inc.; 

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 myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with Section III. E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293] 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 ensurethat 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) [omitted in accordance with Section III. E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293]; 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 anannual 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’sboard of directors: 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting 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: May 15, 2006
# Spring Fling 5K participants ‘Honor the Warrior’

/ Published March 24, 2016

Runners and walkers from across the McNamara Headquarters Complex hit the trails for the Spring Fling 5K March 20.

Just days after the official start of spring, more than 180 employees took the opportunity to celebrate warmer weather and embrace the event’s theme of “Honor the Warrior.”

The 5K ties into the 12-week Winter Warrior Project, said Brandon Rudolph, program manager at the Defense Logistics Agency HQC fitness center. 

“‘Embrace the Warrior’ goes hand in hand with the Winter Warrior Project. If you’re a part of the Winter Warrior Project, you get bonus points for participating in the race,” Rudolph said.

“A lot of the people taking part in this are a part of the Winter Warrior Project. They’ve been working out for the past 10 weeks, so they’re feeling a lot more confident about working out and running,” he added.

Entire teams from the Winter Warrior Project took part in the event. Jana Lewis from DLA Finance had the support of her team, the Numberettes, with her goal of doing an even pace. 

“This is my third race,” Lewis said. “I love the esprit de corps and coming out with my fellow teammates.”

Air Force Capt. Brandon Bryan, from the Air Force Petroleum Agency, said he’s a regular at the HQC races and was pleased with both the turnout and the weather, which was in the mid-60 degrees.

“I’ve done this race several times; this is probably my fourth or fifth. Running 5Ks and 10Ks is just a hobby for me to stay in shape,” Bryan said.

Bryan was the first-place male runner, with a time of 19 minutes, 53 seconds, beating his win from the 2015 Halloween 5K by one second. Erin Hall with DLA Strategic Materials was the first place female runner with a time of 23:43.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ckrush, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jeremy Dallow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

Dated: May 20, 2008


By:


/s/ Jeremy DallowJeremy Dallow
Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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.

---
#### Stefanie Raben, Appellant, v The Conde Nast Publications, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. The Conde Nast Publications, Inc., et al., Third-Party PlaintiffsRespondents, et al., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Willardt Photography & Film, Sued Herein as Williardt Photography & Film, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 440]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered May 29, 2002, which granted the respective summary judgment motions of defendants Conde Nast Publications, Inc. and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. and of third-party defendants Willardt Photography & Film and Kent Pill, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a model, sustained injury in a fall from a bicycle during the course of a photography session. Since defendant publishers did not control the manner in which third-party defendants carried out the photography assignment, they are not subject to liability for injury caused by any negligence of independent contractors *(Kleeman v Rheingold,*81 NY2d 270, 273 [1993]; *Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy.,*79 NY2d 663, 668 [1992]). Although a determination as to control typically involves a question of fact, the issue may properly be resolved as a matter of law where the evidence presents no conflict *(Melbourne v New York Life Ins. Co.,*271 AD2d 296, 297 [2000]). The contract between defendant publishers and the photographer specifies that he is an independent contractor, and the testimony demonstrates that while he undertook to achieve an agreed result, he was not subject to the publishers’ direction with respect to the means employed to perform the assigned work *(see Berger v Dykstra,*203 AD2d 754 [1994], *lv dismissed*84 NY2d 965 [1994]). Finally, the record does not support plaintiff’s claim that the work which the photographer was hired to perform was inherently dangerous. Any hazard that *118might have been present was not “readily forseeable” from the nature of the photography work contracted for *(Wright v Tudor City Twelfth Unit,*276 NY 303, 307 [1938]). Rather, the accident was the result of “ ‘more or less usual negligence’ ” *(MacDonald v Heuer,*253 AD2d 795, 796 [1998], quoting Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 71, at 514 [5th ed]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls 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 and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of May 21, 2006, based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: July 12, 2006 /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir   Leonard R. Stein-Sapir   Chairman of the Board,
# McNamara HQC Family Day provides music, movies, memories 

/ Published June 26, 2015
Fort Belvoir, VA,
No. 10-6299.

#### Brandon Arnae Taylor, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 529,

178 L. Ed. 2d 389,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8636.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.

Same case below, 48 Cal. 4th 574, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 87, 229 P.3d 12.
#### In the Matter of Willie F. Morris, Petitioner, v Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 238]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2225

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a salmon captive broodstock

program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 21 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a salmon

captive broodstock program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Winter Run Chinook

5 Salmon Captive Broodstock Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SALMON CAPTIVE

7 BROODSTOCK PROGRAM.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (d), the Sec9 retary of the Interior (hereinafter in this section referred

10 to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall conduct in accordance with
2

S 2225 IS

1 this section a salmon captive broodstock program (herein2 after in this section referred to as the ‘‘Program’’).

3 (b) PROGRAM.—The program shall be carried out in

4 a manner that is consistent with the goals, priorities, and

5 policies set forth in any recovery plan for winter run Chi6 nook salmon in the Sacramento River developed by the

7 National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered

8 Species Act of 1973, and with findings of consultations

9 regarding that population of salmon carried out pursuant

10 to section 7 of that Act.

11 (c) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult

12 with the Winter Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock

13 Committee (a committee identified in the document enti14 tled ‘‘Biological Assessment on the Effects of Coleman

15 National Fish Hatchery Operations on Winter Run Chi16 nook Salmon’’, prepared by the United States Fish and

17 Wildlife Service) in making management decisions regard18 ing the Program.

19 (d) STATE MATCHING.—The Secretary may not im20 plement this section unless not less than 20 percent of

21 amounts necessary to conduct the Program are provided

22 by non-Federal sources.

23 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

24 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to con-
3

S 2225 IS

1 duct the Program $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years

2 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Æ
#### First National Bank of Key West, a national bank organized and existing under the laws of the United States, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. The Board of Public Instruction for the County of Dade, State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

145 So. 203.

Division B.

Opinion filed January 2, 1933.

*Loftin, Stokes <& Galkins,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Shipp, Evans & Kline,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Court below entered upon sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s declaration in a suit brought to enforce promissory notes executed by the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, in consideration of the purchase price of lands *526for a school site, should be affirmed on the authority of Babcock v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 104 Fla. 693, 140 Sou. Rep. 644, decided at the last term, unless the fact that plaintiff, being a *bona fide*third person holder of the notes for value, has a greater right to enforce same than did the original payee.

The rule on this subject is that the protection that commercial usage throws around commercial paper cannot be used to establish the authority by which it was originally issued.

A purchaser of commercial paper executed by the Board of Public Instruction of a county must at his peril see that the officers executing same had competent legal authority to bind the public corporate board for which they undertook to act. See Pierce v. United States, 7 Wall. 666, 19 L. Ed. 169; School Directors v. Sippy, 54 Ill. 287; School Directors v. Taylor, 54 Ill. 289; Turk v. County Board of Education, 222 Ala. 177, 131 Sou. Rep. 436.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Brown, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Honorable Tom P. Coleman, Jr. 

the purabse or male of 8nythbg~farc%om 

uroount or mtaah oouw, oity or WE, OT T&CJ S&U 

amet ropr or noelve w mmy or m, or 

the re~se~tative or either, ar a8y emlumh ar 

advantage vhatmaever In aonmib6lrtiea of mob hid. 

: . 
261 

Bono~ble TOQ F. CO~~SU~~ Jr., Page 2 

. 

ProRomal, mmtrwt, purchase or uh, b ah8U k 

fined not lesa than rlrty MIC Y)- tin tiw h&M 

dollars. "

The above mtatute vam oonatm in mucbJ T. 

by the court 0r Appeals, 10 S. If. 761, &j rhlah it na 

State, 

dealared that manlremtly, the LO~IS~~- in orating thm 

statute, intended themby to proteat CW&IW, atiu aad 

tarnm from 0rri0ial p0atitim. ~hbthbr l dm8iw i8 

%wniarll~ Ilnterested' am that tam lm wd in tko statute, 

lm smmanll~ a qussti0n 0r r80t. ti -loud in JW r8- 

qwmt, the buml~emm im ow&ad and o-t& by tb oodsmh%ter~a 

brother and it dow not appear tbt ti aadui- IS 

p$ooaoarXl? lntawemted in avglng ruch pumhasu u 8@nt or the 

. 

We held in auf opinion lo. 0463 radued to mu 

en the date or July 6, 1939, that ti am-t &W k&y 

vork between the board of mmqpra or tb~ somty mt8.l aad 

the laundry, one or the WXHUW or thy w or vhleh tr a 

@ator and ineplber othe board, im oontruy to pb.Uc m 

and void. We are unmble to bring tIm contwata ad Forabuem 

made aa thated In your requbt vitbin tb holdig of tkl8 

opinion and the rule announaed in 10 Tusm Jwlme, mgraph 81.1 am ulted by you in your let-, am ve thioL tiw 

011108 supporting suoh rule are olewly to be bis~- 

It ir thersrore thm opid~n 0r uam depu+ant aat 

it Im not illegal ror a aounty awmioau to OIpobru -- 

genay l uppllem r0r OOnStruatlOn aad rmpai.r of oauntf rc-ds u 

an agent or the oounty undo? waioray or the ooort lrar l 

brother vbo own8 and operator a bumlnmsm, vhor9 the d*loner 

18 not peounl8rlly lnteremted in the aontmat. 

APPROVEDDEC 3, 1940 

03---+~ 

ATTOlU.?EY GZXEIEUL OP TEXAS
#### Janet Pendleton et al., Appellants, v Madeline Bizzoco et al., Respondents.

[58 NYS3d 567]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 18, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Janet Pendleton did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

*712The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Janet Pendleton (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the injured plaintiffs brain did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Marshall v Marshall,*117 AD3d 805, 806 [2014]; *Gellis v Singho,*92 AD3d 720 [2012]; *Felix v Wildred,*54 AD3d 891 [2008]; *Matthews v Cupie Transp. Corp.,*302 AD2d 566, 567 [2003]), and that, in any event, the alleged injury was not caused by the subject accident *(see generally Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]). In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury to her brain under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and as to whether the alleged injury was caused by the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d at 353-355; *Flanders v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*124 AD3d 1035, 1036-1038 [2015]; *Gellis v Singho,*92 AD3d at 720; *Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d at 787).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.