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

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Robert L. Demorest,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of MOCON, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  November 14, 2007

 

 
| /s/ Robert L. Demorest                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Demorest                     |
| Chief Executive Officer  and President |
| (Principal Executive  Officer)         |

 

 

----
# C_2013108EN.01003001.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/30

---

Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Representation of a bottle)

(Case T-66/13)

2013/C 108/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2012 in Case R 129/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2012 in Case R 129/2012-1;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark, representing a bottle, for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 10 005 866

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(2), 75, 76(1) and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-5700.

#### Larry Lyle Lasko, Petitioner v. Harrell Watts, et al.

562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 337,

178 L. Ed. 2d 219,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7456.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 196.
#### People v DeJesus

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 788 (Kings)

denied 8/22/16 (Stein, J.)
No. 10-6517.

#### Billy F. Hansen, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 648,

178 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9058.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 37 So. 3d 852.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-40430

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Manuel Diaz, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-460-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Manuel Diaz pleaded guilty to one count of distributing child 

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). In his written plea 

agreement, Diaz reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to suppress evidence. He asserts that the district court erred in 

finding that his warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should 

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40430 Document: 00515519352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2020
No. 19-40430

2

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we 

review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions 

of law—including its determination that probable cause to arrest existed—

de novo. United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995). We may 

uphold the district court’s ruling on any basis established by the record. 

United States v. Mata, 517 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Considering the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the Government—including the “ordinary citizen[s’] eyewitness” 

descriptions of the photographs contained in Diaz’s cellular telephone as 

child pornography involving young girls—we conclude that the facts known 

to police at the moment they arrested Diaz sufficed to give rise to a fair 

probability that he had engaged in criminal activity. United States v. 

Burbridge, 252 F.3d 775, 777-78 (5th Cir. 2001); Wadley, 59 F.3d at 512; 

United States v. Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1999).

Because the police had probable cause to arrest Diaz, his subsequent 

incriminating statements, which he made after he was Mirandized, as well as 

the photographs and video recordings recovered from his cellular telephone 

as a result of those statements, were admissible. Accordingly, the district 

court did not err in denying Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence. See Wadley, 

59 F.3d at 512.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40430 Document: 00515519352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Quick, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 817]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), both imposed August 27, 2015, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; *People v Cambridge,*145 AD3d 795, 795 [2016]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claims. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Chambers, Sgroi, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6057.

#### Charles Lamont Miller, Petitioner v. William B. Kolender, former Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 513,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8546,

178 L. Ed. 2d 379,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6441.

#### William Zamot-Santiago, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 431,

178 L. Ed. 2d 335,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8270.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### People v Bowers

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1049 (Kings)

denied 3/22/17 (Rivera, J.)
Exhibit
23.1 – CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation of our report
dated December 17, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Dynasil Corporation of America and Subsidiaries as of and for the years
ended September 30, 2010 and 2009,included in
this Form 10-K, into the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 ( File
Nos. 333-169623, 333-165651 and 333-46068).




Haefele,
Flanagan & Co., p.c.




Maple
Shade, New Jersey


December
17, 2010
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**39 CAF 10-00293**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF TRACY ANDERSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARAH RONCONE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ELIZABETH J. CIAMBRONE, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

KENNETH W. GIBBONS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO, FOR CHEYENNE R. AND JEFFREY R., JR.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered January 20, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied the petition for visitation.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order that denied her petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation by providing her with unsupervised visitation with two of her children. Those children are in the custody of respondent, their paternal aunt. “An order of visitation cannot be modified unless there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order [that], if not addressed, would have an adverse effect on the children’s best interests” ( Matter of Neeley v Ferris , 63 AD3d 1258, 1259; see Matter of Taylor v Fry , 63 AD3d 1217, 1218). Here, the mother failed to demonstrate such a change in circumstances, and the record supports Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be served by continuing the requirement that visitation be supervised ( see Matter of Burczynski v Rodgers , 61 AD3d 1401; Matter of De Cicco v De Cicco , 29 AD3d 1095, 1096).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
| (i) | The                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year                ended                December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements                of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                       |   |   |                                                                                                            |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                    April 15,                    2008 |   | By:    | /s/                    Joe                    Miller                                                            |
|                                                            |   |        | Joe                    Miller                                                                                   |
|                                                            |   |        | Chief                    Financial                    Officer (Principal Accounting                    Officer) |

----
**Exhibit 10.24**

**AMENDMENT TO DRSTECHNOLOGIES, INC.**2006 OMNIBUS PLAN

This Amendment, dated as of April 5, 2007, ismade to the DRS Technologies, Inc. 2006 Omnibus Plan (the “Plan”). Capitalizedterms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in thePlan.

WHEREAS, DRS Technologies, Inc. has previouslyadopted the Plan;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21 of the Plan, theBoard of Directors (the “Board”) of DRS Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)has authority to amend the Plan;

WHEREAS, upon recommendation by the ExecutiveCompensation Committee, the Board has on April 5, 2007 amended the Plan inthe following respects;

NOW THEREFORE, thisAmendment to the Plan is adopted effective as of April 5, 2007:

1.    Section 2(n) ofthe Plan is amended to read as follows:

“(n) The “Fair Market Value” of a share ofCompany Stock, as of a date of determination, shall mean (1) the closingsales price per share of Company Stock on the national securities exchange onwhich such stock is principally traded on such date of determination (or, ifthere is no reported sale on such date, on the last preceding date on which anyreported sale occurred), or (2) if the shares of Company Stock are notthen listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the closing price as reported bythe Nasdaq Stock Market on such date of determination (or, if there is noreported sale on such date, on the last preceding date on which any reportedsale occurred), or (3) if the shares of Company Stock are not then listedon a national securities exchange or traded in an over-the-counter market orthe value of such shares is not otherwise determinable, such value asdetermined by the Committee in good faith and in accordance with Section 409Aof the Code.”

This Amendment is effective as of the date first setforth above. Except as amended hereunder, all other terms and conditions of thePlan shall remain in full force and effect.

----
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 Cedric Kushner Promotions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Cedric Kushner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.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 results of operations
          of the Company.

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




/s/ Cedric Kushner
--------------------------------------------------------
Name: Cedric Kushner
Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: December 22, 2003
No. 10-5632.

#### Christopher C. Dean, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 642,

178 L. Ed. 2d 486,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9083.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 604 F.3d 1275.
No. 10-6899.

#### Harold Eugene Bell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8757.

178 L. Ed. 2d 426,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 835.
#### People v Clayton

2d Dept: 131 AD3d 623 (Kings)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
# DLA Distribution Yokosuka, Japan’s, Surge Team awarded Team of the Quarter

/ Published Aug. 21, 2015
YOKOSUKA, Japan, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Yokosuka, Japan’s, Surge Team has been awarded the Team of the Quarter award for third quarter, fiscal year 2015, for their outstanding strides managing the air, sea, and truck cargo deliveries throughout mainland Japan during a surge of inbound containers.

The team scheduled, unloaded, and processed more than 550 seavan containers and more than 1,200 trucks, amounting to more than 67,600 transshipments.

After the fleet returned to their home port, the team manifested and delivered close to 19,000 line items, consisting of more than 3,000 pallets, which is over 75 percent of their workload for this fiscal year.  Household goods, which were originally excluded from the Theater Consolidation and Shipping Point scope, were reevaluated for their handling as general cargo, and were subsequently included.  Working with the Air Mobility Command and the 35th Logistics Readiness Squadron, the team expeditiously handled the cargo – more than 40 trucks, and more than 20 seavans.

Through dedication, hard work, and focus, the team loaded, booked, and shipped more than 200 containers containing more than 4,800 line items to eleven different countries in the Central and Pacific commands, as well as to the Continental United States.  Additionally, more than 600 trucks were loaded and manifested, containing more than 22,000 line items destined for Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force facilities in mainland Japan.  Processing included hazardous material certification for shipping, as well as export and import documentation for multiple countries.
# C_2013252EN.01002201.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Ville de Mons v KPN Group Belgium SA

(Case C-346/13)

2013/C 252/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ville de Mons

Appellant:

Respondent: KPN Group Belgium SA

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services [(the ‘Authorisation Directive’)] (1) preclude local authorities from introducing a tax, for budgetary or other reasons, on the economic activity of telecommunications operators, in the form of the presence on their territory of GSM pylons, masts or antennas used for the purposes of that activity?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2726 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2726

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 18, 2019

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit smoking on Amtrak 
                                trains.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Banning Smoking on Amtrak Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SMOKING ON AMTRAK TRAINS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 243 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 24323. Prohibition on smoking on Amtrak trains
    ``(a) Prohibition.--Beginning on the date of enactment of the 
Banning Smoking on Amtrak Act of 2019, Amtrak shall prohibit smoking on 
board Amtrak trains.
    ``(b) Electronic Cigarettes.--
            ``(1) Inclusion.--The use of an electronic cigarette shall 
        be treated as smoking for purposes of this section.
            ``(2) Electronic cigarette defined.--In this section, the 
        term `electronic cigarette' means a device that delivers 
        nicotine or other substances to a user of the device in the 
        form of a vapor that is inhaled to simulate the experience of 
        smoking.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 243 of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``24323. Prohibition on smoking on Amtrak trains.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```