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 of International Lease FinanceCorporation;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 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 officer 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 the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):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: May 11, 2006/S/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
# C_2009035EN.01000501.xml

| 12.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5140 — Foxconn/Sanmina SCI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 35/03)

On 24 June 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5140. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5140. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 30, 2013

s0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146531 & (29)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146531

COA: 310959

Macomb CC: 2006-001180-FH

2006-001181-FH

2006-001182-FH

MICHAEL TODD DAVIS, 2006-001183-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 2006-001528-FH

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41498 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE GUADALUPE DE HOYOS

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 553

- 1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT , and COSTA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe De Hoyos

- Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De Hoyos

- Lopez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 20 , 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41498 Document: 00514039774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017No. 16

- 41498

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41498 Document: 00514039774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Atlas Aquarius SIMPSON, a/k/a Large Atlas A. Simpson, Appellant.

No. 08-1841.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 25, 2011.

Filed: July 8, 2011.

Gordon A.D. Zubrod, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dennis E. Boyle, Esq., Boyle, Neblett & Wenger, Camp Hill, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE: BARRY, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Atlas Aquarius Simpson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport individuals for purposes of engaging in prostitution, to coercing and enticing individuals to travel to engage in prostitution, and to interstate travel with intent to distribute the proceeds of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2421, 2422(a), and 1952(a). He also pleaded guilty to a count of interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) and (2).

Quoting Simpson’s brief, he appeals: “Whether a District Court’s decision to count a violation of a local tax ordinance violates the sentencing guidelines where a violation of a municipal tax law is not a violation of any state criminal statute?” Appellant’s Brief, p. 2. We have plenary review over the District Court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. *United States v. Jimenez,*513 F.3d 62, 85 (3d Cir.2008). We will affirm.

*82Citing to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2 (2006), Simpson avers that the District Court erred by assigning to him one criminal history point for having been convicted of failing to file an earned income tax return. The problem with Simpson’s assertion, however, is that the District Court accounted for his objection in its sentence. The applicable statutory maximum was 120 months. With an offense level of 23, and a criminal history category of VI, Simpson’s Guidelines range was 92 to 115 months. However, acknowledging that one criminal history point was for failure to file a local earned income tax return, the District Judge agreed to credit Simpson one point, accounting for it in her analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) factors. If the point had been removed from the Guidelines calculation, his Guidelines range would have been 84 to 105 months. Taking note of Simpson’s objection — among other factors — in its section 3553(a) analysis, the District Court sentenced him to 72 months of imprisonment, well below either Guidelines range. Moreover, upon the government’s motion for a downward departure for Simpson’s substantial cooperation in the prosecution of co-conspirators, pursuant to section 5K1.1, the District Court issued an amended sentence of 57 months.

The District Court’s sentence is eminently reasonable and substantially just. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.1

1

. Although Judge Hardiman agrees that Simpson’s sentence is eminently reasonable and substantially just, he would hold that the District Court committed procedural error by assigning Simpson one criminal history point pursuant to section 4A1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
# C_2008063EN.01000301.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4941 — Henkel/Adhesives and Electronic Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 63/04)

On 15 February 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M4941. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4941. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2095 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-fluoro-2-nitro benzene. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-fluoro-2-nitro benzene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1-FLUORO-2-NITRO BENZENE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.06.21 1-fluoro-2-nitro benzene 

(CAS No. 1493–27–2) (provided for in subheading 

2904.90.30) ......................... 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 2095 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15

- 12870

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:12

- cv

- 61670

- LSS

GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY

, PATRIOT NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,

PATRIOT UNDERWRITERS, INC.,

Plaintiff s

– Counter

Defendants

- Appellees

Cro ss Appellants

,

versus

BRAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC.

, a.k.a. Brand Management Service,

HERSHEL WEBER,

a.k.a. Herschel Weber,

a.k.a. Hershal Weber,

a.k.a. Harold Weber,

Defendant s

- Counter

Claimants

– Appellants

Cross Appellees. Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 1 of 32 ________________________

No. 15

- 15162

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:12

- cv

- 61670

- LSS

GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY

, PATRIOT NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,

PATRIOT UNDERWRITERS, INC.,

Plaintiff s

– Counter

Defendants

- Appellee s

,

versus

BRAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC.

, a.k.a. Brand Management Service,

HERSHEL WEBER,

a.k.a. Herschel We ber,

a.k.a. Hershal Weber,

a.k.a. Harold Weber,

Defendant s

– Counter

Claimants

- Appellants.

________________________

Appeal s from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

( July 8 , 2016 )

Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES , Circuit Judge s , and WOOD

, * District

Judge.

* Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge for the Southern District of

Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:

Defendants appeal the district court’s award of future damages on Plaintiffs’

claims for breach of contract, as well as its award of attorney s ’ fees and expenses

to Plaintiff s. On appeal, Defendants argue that the court calculated the amount of

Plaintiffs’ future financial losses based on insufficient evidence and failed to

discount the amount to present value. Defendants also contend that the district

court erred in awarding the full amount of Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses

,

attributable to both their successful contract claims and unsuccessful tort claims

alike , and in assessing the award against Defendants jointly and severally

.

Plaintiffs cross appeal the district c ourt’s rul ing that Defendants were not

liable for fraudulent inducement or negligent misrepresentation, and that punitive

damages thus were not unwarranted. Plaintiffs assert that the court erred in its

analysis of the parol evidence rule and justifiable reliance under Florida law and

neglected to consider key evidence.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, and with the benefit of

oral argument, we find no reversible err or in the district court’s rulings

.

AFFIRMED. 1

1 Defendants’ “Motion to Strike a Portion of the Answer and Initial Brief of Appellees/Cross

Appellants” is GRANTED. We did not rely on the factual findings in Sentry Ins urance v. Brand

M anagemen t Inc. , 120 F. Supp. 3d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), to resolve this appeal.

Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 3 of 3
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2208 

To amend the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the definition of manipulation with respect 

to currency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. MANZULLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Exchange Rates and International Economic 

Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the definition 

of manipulation with respect to currency, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fair Currency Prac5 tices Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2208 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FI2 NANCIAL POLICY. 

3 (a) BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS.—Section 3004(b) of 

4 the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 

5 Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended 

6 in the second sentence by striking ‘‘and (2)’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘or (2)’’. 

8 (b) DEFINITION OF MANIPULATION.—Section 3006 

9 of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 

10 Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5306) is amended 

11 by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(3) MANIPULATION OF RATE OF EXCHANGE.— 

13 For purposes of this Act, a country shall be consid14 ered to be manipulating the rate of exchange be15 tween its currency and the United States dollar if 

16 there is a protracted large-scale intervention in one 

17 direction in the exchange markets. The Secretary 

18 may find that a country is manipulating the rate of 

19 exchange based on any other factor or combination 

20 of factors.’’. 

21 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

22 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 

23 shall undertake an examination, and submit a report to 

24 Congress, regarding the trade surplus of the People’s Re25 public of China. The Secretary shall examine why the 

26 trade surplus with the United States and other countries 
3 

•HR 2208 IH 

1 reported by the People’s Republic of China differs from 

2 the trade surplus reported by the other countries. The re3 port shall also quantify the differences between the trade 

4 surplus reported by the United States and other countries 

5 and what is reported by the People’s Republic of China. 

Æ
#### La Touraine Coffee Co., Inc., Appellant, v Al Deppe’s Diner, Inc., et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover moneys owed primarily on notes and personal guarantees, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Goldberg, J.), entered March 16,1982, as denied those branches of its motion as sought summary judgment with respect to causes of action Nos. 1 through 13 and 22.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the aforenoted branches of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted as to causes of action Nos. 1 through 13 and 22, and matter remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment which shall include attorney’s fees to which *825plaintiff is entitled under the agreements entered into by the parties providing for attorney’s fees of 15% of the sum recovered.

On this motion for summary judgment, the movant produced evidentiary facts supporting the causes of action at issue and indicating the lack of a triable issue of fact. Defendants’ papers submitted in opposition contain only conclusory statements and no evidentiary facts or documents demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. In the absence of such an evidentiary showing, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be granted to the extent indicated herein *(Indig v Finkelstein,*23 NY2d 728; *Castro v Liberty Bus Co.,*79 AD2d 1014). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Rubin, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 6, 2006

Decided September 11, 2006

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 06-1533 v.

MICHAEL FADEYI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division.

No. 00 CR 153

Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.

Order

Fadeyi's conviction and most of his sentence were affirmed in 2004, although we

remanded for reconsideration of the forfeiture order. Before the appeal from the revised sentence

could be resolved, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

which led us to ask the district court whether recognition of additional discretion would have

affected the sentence. An affirmative answer led to another remand and a reduction in the term of

imprisonment from 151 to 132 months. Fadeyi has filed a third appeal.

The only argument now advanced is that, even though Booker reduced the Sentencing

Guidelines to advisory status, the district court must use a reasonable-doubt standard when 

resolving any contested factual issue. That argument is inconsistent with the intellectual

foundations of Booker, which held that the Constitution requires an elevated standard (and an

opportunity, here waived, for decision by a jury) on disputes that raise the "statutory maximum

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 06-1533 Page 2

sentence." The remedial portion of Booker removed the Guidelines from the set of matters that

can change the statutory maximum. The burden of persuasion in federal sentencing accordingly is

the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Bryant, 420 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir.

2005); United States v. Spence, 450 F.3d 691, 697 (7th Cir. 2006).

Affirmed
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

          Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Larry P. Koskan, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Donlar Biosyntrex Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

1.        The Company's Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report for the period ended
          September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) 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.


Dated:  November 14, 2002              /s/ Larry P. Koskan
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Larry P. Koskan, President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1499 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     November 15, 2005.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1499) entitled ``An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
allow members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat zone to make 
contributions to their individual retirement plans even if the 
compensation on which such contribution is based is excluded from gross 
income, and for other purposes.'' do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

On page 3, line 3, strike [December 31, 2004] and insert: December 31, 2003

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1499

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
#### In re LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 20, 1912.)

In the matter of the incorporation of the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo. No opinion. Articles of incorporation approved.