alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
   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 respects 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 officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and
Rule 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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
function):
   Date: December 22, 2010
    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-SapirChairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer 18
#### Take Two Outdoor Media LLC, Matter of, v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of N.Y.

1st Dept: 128 AD3d 563

denied
# ‘Air Power – a team sport’

/ Published Nov. 23, 2015
RICHMOND, Virginia, http://www.robins.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151119-023.pdf
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7868

ROBERT LEE ELMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BARNEY LLOYD, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-01-956-9-19RB)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Elmore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Elmore seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001) without prejudice because he failed to

exhaust state court remedies. Because Elmore can exhaust his state

court remedies and re-file his petition, his appeal of the dismissal without prejudice is interlocutory and not subject to appellate review under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392,

10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-302.

#### Joyce Kubicki, Petitioner v. Approximately 3.38 Acres of Land Located Near County of Oakland, State of Michigan, et al.

562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 521,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8657.

178 L. Ed. 2d 373,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of Alexander H., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Brenda P.-H., Appellant; Sheltering Arms Children and Family Services, Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 711]

Notice of appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2016, which granted petitioner agency’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of severe abuse as to the subject child, deemed a motion for leave to appeal, the motion granted, and the order unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency established prima facie that the child was “severely abused” by respondent mother (Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [iii] [C]; [iv]) by submitting respondent’s criminal conviction of second-degree assault with respect to another of her children and a prior order of the court granting the agency’s motion to excuse it from making efforts to reunify respondent with the child, from which respondent did not appeal. In opposition, respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Matter of Vivienne Bobbi-Hadiya S. [Makena Asanta Malika McK.],*126 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 909 [2015]).

There is no appeal as of right from a nondispositional order in a permanent neglect proceeding (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; *Matter of Tasha E.,*161 AD2d 226, 227 [1st Dept 1990]; *see also Matter of Alyssa L. [Deborah K.],*93 AD3d 1083, 1085-1086 [3d Dept 2012]). Nevertheless, we find there is no merit to the claim.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
No. D-2519.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Paul Mpande Ngobeni.

562 U.S. 811, 131 S. Ct. 401,

178 L. Ed. 2d 266,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7634.

October 4, 2010.

Paul Mpande Ngobeni, of Putnam, Connecticut, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Tishman Construction Corp. et al., Respondents, v United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc., Appellant. David Rodriguez, Nonparty Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 676]—

[Recalled and vacated, see 2018 NY Slip Op 00795.]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered January 27, 2016, which, after a hearing, found defendant United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc. (UHCW) and nonparty David Rodriguez guilty of civil contempt for, inter alia, failure to abide by the stipulation, and order of the same court and Justice, entered May 22, 2012, and imposed a $1,000 fine on UHCW and a $500 fine on Rodriguez, in addition to awarding attorney fees, costs and expenses, and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*472The court properly found that appellants disobeyed the stipulation and order, which was negotiated by the parties and set forth the conditions for protests held by UHCW. These conditions expressed an unequivocal mandate of which appellants were well aware, and their violation of the order prejudiced plaintiffs’ right to conduct business without disturbance, thus justifying the finding of contempt *(see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan,*26 NY3d 19 [2015]; *McCain v Dinkins,*84 NY2d 216 [1994]).

The court properly exercised jurisdiction over Rodriguez, who is president of UHCW and who signed the 2012 stipulation and order that was subsequently violated. Although Rodriguez was not personally served in the action, it is undisputed that he was involved in the negotiation of the stipulation, and was knowledgeable of the conditions set forth therein. Furthermore, the evidence presented at the contempt hearing demonstrated that Rodriguez himself violated the court’s mandates. Under these circumstances, Rodriguez, even as a nonparty, can be punished for UHCW’s violations of the stipulation and order *(see 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 57*AD3d 340 [1st Dept 2008]).

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory 
Committee Meeting; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that published in the Federal Register of June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32014). 
The notice announced a meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel 
of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, which is scheduled for June 
29 and 30, 1998. The notice published with an error. This document 
corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Prout, Committee Management 
Office (HFA-306), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-5503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 11, 1998 (63 
FR 32014), in FR Doc. 98-15602, FDA announced that a meeting of the 
Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory 
Committee would be held on June 29 and 30, 1998. The notice incorrectly 
published the agenda for June 30, 1998.
    Beginning on page 32014, in the 2d column, under the Agenda portion 
of the meeting, the agenda for June 30, l998, should be corrected to 
read: ``On June 30, 1998, the committee will discuss and make 
recommendations on clinical issues related to antimicrobial coatings on 
permanent cardiovascular implants, such as heart valves and vascular 
grafts.''
    Dated: June 22, 1998.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 98-17143 Filed 6-23-98; 5:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
No. 10-6785.

#### Ferrell Damon Scott, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 548,

178 L. Ed. 2d 402,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8359.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 419.
================================================================================

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Terra  Systems,  Inc., on Form
10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2006, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Clayton Timothy,  CEO of
the Company, certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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.


Date: April  13, 2007


/s/ Clayton Timothy
------------------------------------------
Clayton Timothy
CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)

















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 09-10905.

#### Margaret Musleve, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Musleve.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 594,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8929.

178 L. Ed. 2d 433,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Stark County, denied.
No. 10-5483.

#### Christopher Allen Morace, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 924, 131 S. Ct. 307,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7183.

178 L. Ed. 2d 199,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 594 F.3d 340.
# C_2013367EN.01002303.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 26 September 2013 — Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve

(Case C-514/13)

2013/C 367/41

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ettayebi Bouzalmate

Applicant:

Defendant: Kreisverwaltung Kleve

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does it follow from Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) that a Member State is required, as a rule, to detain a person for the purposes of removal in a specialised detention facility if such facilities exist only in a part of the federal structure of the State, but not in another part in which the detention is carried out in accordance with the provisions governing the federal structure of that Member State?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

1

---
No. 10-5332.

#### Pete Nechovski, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 278,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7020.

178 L. Ed. 2d 183,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certiorari denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 568.
# C_2015221EN.01001101.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARĺA ORO)

(Case T-271/13) (1)

1

((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara MARÍA ORO - Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO - Partial refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño and V. Melgar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re

Re

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2013 (case R 1285/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    PETER S.
TESHIMAPeter S. TeshimaCorporate Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial OfficerDecember 9,
2010
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Miguel Enriquez, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 678]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this *950Court in 2003 and lists a business address in Uster, Switzerland with the Office of Court Administration. By 2014 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York due to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (113 AD3d 1020, 1055 [2014]; *see*Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]). By correspondence to this Court, respondent has requested his reinstatement *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]) and, by correspondence from its Chief Attorney, petitioner objects to respondent’s request.

In addition to other requirements *(see Matter of Edelstein,*150 AD3d 1531 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), an applicant for reinstatement must, as a threshold matter, support his or her application with certain required documentation *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Here, respondent failed to submit a sworn affidavit as has been consistently required by this Court and is now mandated by the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters.* Further, the statements provided in respondent’s correspondence are unsworn, not executed before a notary or other officer and give no assurance that they were made in contemplation of their legal significance *(see Matter of Lee,*148 AD3d 1454 [2017]). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we cannot excuse the defects in respondent’s application, and it must therefore be denied *(see id.).*

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion for reinstatement is denied.

*

 Respondent has not answered correspondence from petitioner notifying him of the deficiencies in his application.
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Project Connect


Section Navigation
			
			CDC Home








Project Connect						Print
																Related Pages
					Project Connect, An intervention to link youth to high-quality health care services.The Project Connect Health Systems Intervention (Project Connect) is an evidence-based, scalable intervention designed to increase youth access to sexual and reproductive health care services. Project Connect promotes health systems change by identifying providers who are already doing a good job of serving youth, then linking youth to those resources.This guide provides step-by-step instructions and lessons learned to help you prepare to implement Project Connect in your community.Case StudiesLos Angeles Skyline Los Angeles
Detroit Detroit
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  April 1, 2020						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeProject Connect
Implementation Guideplus icon
Overview, Challenge, and Core Components
The Road Map – Key Action Steps
Sustainability, Lessons Learned, and Conclusion
Case Studiesplus icon
Detroit
Los Angeles
Tools


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
No. 10-5055.

#### Richard D. Burk, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 901, 131 S. Ct. 234,

178 L. Ed. 2d 155,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6181.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

*156Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 655.
No. 10-466.

#### Pamela D. Cowell, Petitioner v. Good Samaritan Community Health Care, et al.

562 U.S. 1064, 131 S. Ct. 666,

178 L. Ed. 2d 483,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9335.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, denied.

Same case below, 153 Wash. App. 911, 225 P.3d 294.