alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Bahman Atefi, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alion Science and TechnologyCorporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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) [Reserved]     c) 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 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial 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 not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 15, 2005       By:    */s/ Bahman Atefi*         Name: Bahman Atefi    Title: Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Cause No 01-11-00326-CV; Steve Stephens v. Precision Drilling Servs. Corp.

Appeal from Cause No. 2009-30296-A, in the 234th District Court of Harris County, 

Texas.

On November 4, 2011, appellee, Precision Drilling, filed a motion to strike pages of the 

appellants’ reply brief. We deny the motion. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle

Date: May 7, 2013
No. 09-9301.

#### Eddie G. Cargile, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1054, 130 S. Ct. 2355,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2990.

176 L. Ed. 2d 570,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 505.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company hereby 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 results of
operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. /s/ G. Peter DAloiaG. Peter DAloiaSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 24, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                                              [PURVIS GRAY & COMPANY LETTERHEAD]





                                  CONSENT OF
                   INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


April 9, 1997


Key Florida Bancorp, Inc.
6016 - 26th Street West, Suite 1
Bradenton, Florida 34207

Gentlemen:

We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Annual Report on Form
10KSB filed by Key Florida Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated March 7, 1997,
with respect to the financial statements of Key Florida Bancorp, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1996.




                                              PURVIS, GRAY AND COMPANY



                                              /s/ Robert O. Dale
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Robert O. Dale, C.P.A

Gainesville, Florida
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                             AMERICAN STANDARD INC.
              COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Dollars in Millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      For the Years ended December 31,
                                              ------------------------------------------------
                                                1996      1997      1998       1999       2000
                                                -----     -----     -----      -----      ----
<S>                                            <C>      <C>       <C>        <C>        <C>
Income from continuing
   operations before taxes                     $71.1    $347.0    $189.8     $451.5     $509.4


Equity in net (income) loss of
   associated companies net of dividends
   received                                     11.8      (2.9)     (3.6)      (5.1)      (8.7)

Amortization of capitalized interest             1.3       1.4       1.6        1.8        1.9

Interest expense                               198.2     192.2     188.4      192.1      198.7

Rental expense factor                           27.3      25.0      26.5       33.9       49.4
                                              ------    ------    ------     ------     ------

Earnings available for fixed charges          $309.7    $562.7    $402.7     $674.2     $750.7
                                              ======    ======    ======     ======     ======

Interest expense                              $198.2    $192.2    $188.4     $192.1     $198.7

Capitalized interest                             3.9       3.8       4.5        3.3        2.0

Rental expense factor                           27.3      25.0      26.5       33.9       49.4
                                              ------    ------    ------     ------     ------

Fixed charges                                 $229.4    $221.0    $219.4     $229.3     $250.1
                                              ======    ======    ======     ======     ======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a)           1.3       2.5       1.8        2.9        3.0
</TABLE>

a)   For the purpose of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, fixed
     charges consist of interest on debt (including capitalized interest),
     amortization of debt discount and expense, and a portion of rentals
     determined to be representative of interest. Earnings consist of
     consolidated net income before income taxes, plus fixed charges other than
     capitalized interest but including the amortization thereof, adjusted by
     the excess or deficiency of dividends over income of entities accounted for
     by the equity method.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1924

DAVID J. WASHINGTON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

DARYL L. BURNS, Marion County Magistrate; DIANE SCOTT; JUDGE 

BRISTOW; SHERIFF MARK RICHARDSON, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:08-cv-00316-RBH) 

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

David J. Washington appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Washington that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. Despite this warning, Washington failed to file 

specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Washington has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 

specific objections after receiving proper notice. See United 

States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We 

deny Washington’s motion for recusal, finding it meritless. 

2 
3 

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. 

AFFIRMED
# C_2017346EN.01000101.xml

| 14.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8559 — Aunde/Bader/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 346/01)

On 18 September 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8559. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8559. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 09-9127.

#### William Alfred Prescod, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1053, 130 S. Ct. 2352,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3037.

176 L. Ed. 2d 569,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 801.
# C_2017421EN.01000102.xml

| 8.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8639 — Cariparma/Caricesena/Carim/Carismi)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 421/02)

On 30 November 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8639. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8639. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 09-932.

#### Marlene Betz, Petitioner v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security.

559 U.S. 1008, 130 S. Ct. 1911,

176 L. Ed. 2d 367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2676.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 578 F.3d 929.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Joning Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert O. Wilkins, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report 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.



October 11, 2004

/s/  Robert O. Wilkins
-----------------------------
     Robert O. Wilkins,
     Chief Financial Officer
Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- MICHAEL CYPRIA DORSCH, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-602

DECISION

On July 16, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of thirteen (13) months to run concurrently to DC-14-0265, for the offense of Count I: Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, a Felony, in violation of §61-8-401, MCA. Upon successful completion of a residential alcohol treatment program operated or approved by the Dept, of Corrections, the remainder of the thirteen months must be served on probation. It was further ordered that the Defendant is sentenced to the Department of Corrections for an additional five (5) years suspended, to run consecutively to the term imposed above, but concurrently to DC-14-265. Defendant will pay a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to be credited to the General Fund. It was recommended that Defendant be considered for placement at the WATCh Program. The Defendant will receive credit for time spent in pre-trial incarceration from July 25, 2014 to August 13, 2014.

On February 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

*12Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2016.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2016.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Penelope Strong of Penelope Strong Law Office, Billings, MT. The State was not represented. The Defendant’s grandmother, Verna Turnsplenty and the Defendant’s mother, Renita Turnsplenty, were both present and testified.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive. Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED. Furthermore, the *majority*of the members of the Division add that the Defendant and his counsel are aware of the medical parole process and are pursuing this remedy. The *majority*recommends that the Parole Board consider the Defendant’s health.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson and Hon. John Warner, Member.

Judge Newman finds that the sentence imposed by the District Court is neither clearly inadequate nor clearly excessive. He declines to make any recommendation to the Parole Board.
No. 09-8973.

#### Raleigh Duane Leftwich, Petitioner v. Georgia.

559 U.S. 1019, 130 S. Ct. 1913,

176 L. Ed. 2d 386,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2515.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.

*387Same case below, 299 Ga. App. 392, 682 S.E.2d 614.
Order filed February 28, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00251-CV

____________

ADVANCED PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Appellant

V.

JACQUELYN CHURCHILL, EVERETT CHURCHILL AND JED, INC., 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-04324

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed June 3, 2013. Our review has determined that a 

relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain any request for a reporter's record, including 

any statement of points or issues under Rule 34.6 (c).
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before March 7, 2014, containing any request for a reporter's record, 

including any statement of points or issues under Rule 34.6 (c).

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheet as of  September  30,  1999,  and the  Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the nine months ended  September 30, 1999 of Mission
West  Properties,  Inc.,  and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         8,270
<SECURITIES>                                   5,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         708,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (15,022)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 714,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   714,257
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               61,850
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,921
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,124
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .37



</TABLE>
No. 09-9120.

#### April Dawn Carver, Petitioner v. W. Elaine Chapman, Warden, et al.

559 U.S. 1022, 130 S. Ct. 1924,

176 L. Ed. 2d 393,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2542.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 09-810.

#### Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., Petitioner v. Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General of Arkansas.

559 U.S. 1068, 130 S. Ct. 2095,

176 L. Ed. 2d 723,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3339.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*724Same case below, 574 F.3d 929.
No. 11-7254.

#### Eric Lavaughn Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1098, 132 S. Ct. 859,

181 L. Ed. 2d 559,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8954.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 434 Fed. Appx. 159.