alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of International
Lease Finance Corporation;

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 officer 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)) for the registrant and we
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) 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 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 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s board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting 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: February 19, 2004

/S/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy

STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY


Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


-26-
Teddy LAWRENCE, petitioner, v. Betsy MELLOS, et al.

No. 12-9703.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONNECTIVITY
TECHNOLOGIES INC. 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         290,808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,382,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,467,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,805,602
<PP&E>                                       6,445,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,745,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,982,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,867
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,532,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,745,567
<SALES>                                     11,462,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,462,617
<CGS>                                        9,422,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,422,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,041,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             418,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (418,577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (420,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,423
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,423
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
---

March 27th , 2013

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
      (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                     
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                          
|    |                                                     
|    | Consent of Expert                                   

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2012, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Scott Cowie, MAusIMM, hereby consent to the use of my name
in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

                  
Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated February
17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report.

I have read the Companys Annual Report and confirm that it
documents fairly and accurately represent the information that supports the
disclosure.

Yours truly,

|Original
      document signed by Scott Cowie
|-----------------------------------------------
|Scott Cowie                                    

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Brando, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Reilly, J.), rendered July 16, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We reject defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prove a prima facie case, and we note that defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. We also note that it was not error for the trial court to deny defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since the witness in question, Officer Mazelli, was then under indictment for burglary and was not under the control of the People. In any event there is no showing that Mazelli’s testimony would have been other than cumulative *(see, People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126,132-133; *People v Dillard,*96 AD2d 112,115). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Michael Scott FARNER, petitioner, v. David SEXTON, Warden, et al.

No. 12-9008.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied.
Michael SANDERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6891.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

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

February 16, 1970

Dr. J. E. Peavy Commissioner ofHealth Texas State Department of Health Austin, Texas 78756

Dear Dr. Peavy: Opinion No. M-580

Re: Whether the State Health Department has authority toprorate licensing fees provided forunder Article 4477-6;Vernon's Civil Statutes, under stated facts. You have requested of this office anopinion concerning the scope of authority which the Texas State Department ofHealth has under the Renderer's Licensing Act, codified asArticle 4477-6,Vernon's Civil Statutes, which became laweffective September 1, 1969.

With particular reference to Section 13of said Act, which limits the licensing period to oneyear with all renewals from January 1st of each ensuing year, you have asked whether your Department has authority toprorate the required licensing fee asof the date a license is issued.

Section 13ofArticle 4477-6, Vernon's Civil Statutes, isquoted as follows, with emphasis added in regard to the above requirement and other pertinent parts.

"Each license andpermit shall remain in full force and effect until relinquished, suspended, revoked, or expired. All operating licenses shall be issued and granted for one year only, and shall be renewed annually, if desired, by the licensee. The annual renewal fee shall be the same as the original application fee set forth in Section 12above. Every licensee desiring to renew his operating license shall, on orbefore each January lst,

-2764-.- .

Dr. J. E. Peavy, Page 2 (M-580)

pay the Health Authority the required fee. Upon receipt of said fee, the license shall be automatically renewed for the ensuing calendar Es' If the annual renewal fee remains unpaid avs afterwritten notice of delinquency has been given to the licensee by the Health - Authority, the license shall, unless good cause for such failure to renew is shown, thereupon expire, and thereafter shall be renewed only upon anew application pursuant to theprovisions of thisAct." (Emphasis supplied.) Youwill note thewording of Section 12of said Act quoted, inpart, as follows:

The following fees shall accompany each application for operating license or a construction permit:
...." (Emphasis supplied.) There isno provision within saidAct for any proration of fees collected, and in our opinion thewording of theAct makes itmandatory for the statutory fee to accompany the application regardless of the date the application ismade.

We therefore answer your question in the negative.

SUMMARY ------- The Texas State Department of Health does not have the authority underArticle 4477-6,Vernon's Civil Statutes, the Renderer's Licensing Act, to prorate the required fees set in said Act regardless of the dates the licenses are '

.MARTIN General of Texas Prepared by Sam L. Jones, Jr. Assistant Attorney General

-2765-. L

Dr. J. E. Peavy, Page 3 (~-580)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E.Allen, Acting Co-Chairman Michael E. Stork James M. Mabry Jerry Roberts R.D.Green MEADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-2766-
Francis Curtis DAVIS, aka Abdul-Malik Lbnfrancis As-Salafi, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6745.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EX-33.7
(logo) MIDLANDLOANSERVICES

Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria


Midland Loan Services, Inc. ("Midland"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., is responsible for assessing compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Regulation AB") relating to its
role in the servicing of commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions.

Midland has assessed its compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31,2007. In making this assessment, Midland used
the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in Item
1122(d) of Regulation AB. The transactions covered by this report include
commercial mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1,
2006 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Platform").

Based on such assessment, Midland believes that, as of and for the year ended,
Midland has complied in all material respects with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB relating to its role in the servicing of
commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions, except for servicing
criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C), and (D)), 1122(d)(3)(ii)
through (3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which Midland has determined as being
inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions being serviced (the "applicable
servicing criteria").

Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report on Midland's assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.

MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Steven W. Smith
Steven W. Smith
President and
Chief Operating Officer

/s/ Vincent E. Beckett
Vincent E. Beckett
Executive Vice President
Chief Administrative Officer

/s/ Bradley J. Hauger
Bradley J. Hauger
Senior Vice President
Servicing Operations


Date: February 18, 2008


A Member of the PNC Financial Services Group

10851 Mastin P.O. Box 25965 Shawnee Mission Kansas 66225-5965

www.midlandls.com  913 253 9000 T  913 253 9709 F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CLIFFORD CLEVENGER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:15-cv-00337-PPS-SLC

)

CITY OF NORTH WEBSTER )

POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for More Definite Statement (DE 22) filed by Defendant

Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department and its deputies Knafel and Shepard (collectively, “the

County”), asserting that the County cannot reasonably prepare a meaningful response to Plaintiff

Clifford Clevenger’s complaint and asking that the Court order him to make a more definite

statement of his claims. The motion is now fully briefed. (DE 23; DE 24). 

A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading that is “so vague or

ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “In

general, motions for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) are appropriate when a ‘pleading

fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice.’” Malekpour v.

LaHood, No. 12 C 6999, 2012 WL 5996375, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2012) (quoting

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002)). “Motions under Rule 12(e) are

generally disfavored.” Metz v. Joe Rizza Imps., Inc., 700 F. Supp. 2d 983, 992 (N.D. Ill. 2010)

(citations omitted). 
Here, the County asserts that Clevenger’s complaint sets forth at least 10 different federal

claims against all Defendants in a single paragraph and six different state law claims against all

Defendants in a single paragraph. The County asks that the Court order Clevenger to plead each

ground for recovery “in a separate, distinct, and clearly understandable count.” (DE 22 ¶ 10). 

The County also complains that certain of Clevenger’s claims “are mutually exclusive, and

therefore obviously alternative.” (DE 22 ¶ 16). As such, the County asserts that Clevenger’s

complaint as drafted is so vague and ambiguous that it cannot prepare a meaningful response to

all of the claimed causes of action. (DE 22 ¶ 19). 

The County’s motion is unpersuasive. “Rule 8 requires very basic ‘notice pleading,’

which is offset by wide and liberal discovery rights.” Moore v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 869 F.

Supp. 557, 560 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d) (stating that “[n]o

technical form is required” and that a party may plead in the alternative). The Court finds that

Clevenger’s complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that it fails to provide the County notice of

his various federal and state claims , as well as the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g.,

Metz, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 992 (denying defendants’ motion for a more definite statement). As

such, the County has a basis for responding to Clevenger’s claims. Indeed, the other Defendants

have already filed their answers (DE 17; DE 25), and thus, apparently were able to prepare a

meaningful response to Clevenger’s claims. Therefore, the County’s Motion for More Definite

Statement (DE 22) is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

Entered this 4th day of January 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge
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 CanPro Placement Services Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Patrick De Witt, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 13th day of April, 2004.



| | /s/ Patrick De Witt
Patrick De Witt
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------













---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1846

To suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil MEO. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005

Mr. GRAVES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil MEO.

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

3 SECTION 1. BROMOXYNIL MEO. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.06.15 2,6-dibromo-4-cyanophenyl 

octanoate/heptanoate (CAS 

Nos. 1689–99–2 and 

56634–95–8) (provided for 

in subheading 3808.30.15) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 1846 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT
32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
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 Pharmos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, James A. Meer, Chief Financial 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; and2)
  The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ James A.
  MeerJames A.
  Meer, Chief Financial OfficerMay 4,
  2005 25
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1683 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require a minimum basic pay 

level of $2,000 per month for members of the Armed Forces serving 

in a combat zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2005 

Mr. CLAY (for himself, Ms. MCKINNEY, and Mr. BUTTERFIELD) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require a minimum basic pay level of $2,000 per month for members 

of the Armed Forces serving in a combat zone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM BASIC PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE 

4 ARMED FORCES SERVING IN COMBAT ZONES. 

5 (a) MINIMUM BASIC PAY LEVEL ESTABLISHED.— 

6 Section 203 of title 37, United States Code, is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(f) Notwithstanding the rates of basic pay otherwise 

9 in effect at any time, in the case of a member who serves 
2 

•HR 1683 IH 

1 on active duty for 10 or more days during any month in 

2 an area for which special pay is available under section 

3 310 of this title, the rate of basic pay for the member 

4 for that month shall not be less than $2,000.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (f) of section 203 

6 of title 37, United States Code, as added by subsection 

7 (a), shall apply to months beginning after September 30, 

8 2005. 

Æ
RENDA MARINE, INC., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-699.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

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