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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Stanley C. Erck, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Novavax, Inc.;



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.



|Date: April 30, 2019 | By:                                   | /s/ Stanley C. Erck
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------- | -------------------
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Carol A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Johnson County Police Department; Wyandotte County Police Department, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 11-3175.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2011.

*397Carol A. Williams, Kansas City, KS, pro se.

Robert O. Jester, Brandon D. Mizner, Ensz & Jester, P.C., Patrick Matthew Waters, Unified Government of Wyandotte County/KCK, Kansas City, KS, Kirk Thomas Ridgway, Ferree, Bunn, O’Grady & Rundberg, Chtd., Overland Park, KS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On December 8, 2010, plaintiff-appellant Carol A. Williams filed a complaint in federal district court alleging she was the victim of identity theft. Williams sought to have her “name clear[ed] and exsponged [sic].” Upon motion of Defendants, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding Williams had failed to demonstrate that the claims asserted against Defendants arose under federal law. The court further concluded Williams had failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and her complaint failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1332; *Laughlin v. Kmart Corp.,*50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction). The district court also concluded the Johnson County Police Department and the Wyandotte County Police Department are both subordinate governmental entities that lack the capacity to sue or be sued. *See Hopkins v. State,*237 Kan. 601, 702 P.2d 311, 316 (1985); *Mays v. Wyandotte Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*419 Fed.Appx. 794, 795 n. 2 (10th Cir.2011) (“The Wyandotte County Sheriffs Department lacks capacity to be sued in its own name.”).

This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. *See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani,*182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir.1999). Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by Williams in her appellate brief, we conclude the district court *398did not err when it dismissed Williams’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order dated June 8, 2011, we affirm the dismissal of Williams’s complaint.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
734 A.2d 1288

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Eugene L. BROUSE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 3, 1999.

Decided Sept. 9, 1999.

Joseph C. Madenspacher, Dist. Atty., Susan E. Moyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., District Attorney’s Office, for Com.

James J. Karl, Public Defender, James A. Gratton, Asst. Public Defender, Public Defender’s Office, for Eugene L. Brouse.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas dated September 29, 1998, insofar as it is consistent with our disposition in *Williams*and we reverse its order insofar as it is inconsistent with the same. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the Superior Court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.
(121 App. Div. 473.)

#### MACKEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Municipal Corporations—Defective Sidewalk—Actions—Evidence — Admissibility.

In an action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defective condition of a sidewalk, in that there was a depression due to the construction of a curb about 10 or 12 inches from the old curb, without sufficiently filling in the intervening space, evidence that this space was filled in shortly after the accident is inadmissible.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 36, Municipal Corporations, § 1737.]

Appeal from Trial Term, Queens County.

Action by John J. Mackey against the city of New York for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted.

*115Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Theodore Connoly (Royal E. T. Riggs, on the brief), for appellant.

George E. Hickey (William E. Stewart, on the brief), for respondent.

MILLER, J.

This is a sidewalk case. The defect complained of was a depression caused by the construction of a curb about 10 or 12 inches from the old curb, without sufficiently filling in the intervening space. The plaintiff was permitted to prove, over the specific objection that the evidence was irrelevant, that this space was filled in shortly after the accident. Such evidence in this -class of cases has too frequently been condemned to require any discussion or citation of authorities now. As the judgment must be reversed for said error, it would be profitless to discuss the merits at this time.

I advise that the judgment and order be reversed.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted. Costs to abide the event All concur.
# C_2019295EN.01006501.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/65

---

Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Castellina v Parliament

(Case T-446/19)

(2019/C 295/85)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luciana Castellina (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### Joseph Horman et al., Appellants, v Town of Kent et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from water contamination, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 19,1983, which, upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them for nonjoinder of the State of New York as a necessary party, dismissed the complaint as against all defendants “without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims”.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. *(See, Baisley v Town of Kent,*111 AD2d 299.) Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
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 Radiologix, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q, as amended, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sami S. Abbasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ SAMI S. ABBASI                                  
|Sami S. Abbasi President and Chief Executive
Officer

Dated: September 26, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 16-236-cv Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, P.C., v. Kel & Partners LLC et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Cita tion to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted a nd is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party mu st cite either the Fe deral Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summa ry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse , 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29 th day of November, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: J OSÉ A. C ABRANES
, R OSEMARY S. P OOLER
, Circuit Judges, J OHN G. K OELTL
, District Judge. *

B ELLAVIA B LATT & C ROSSETT
, P.C.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 16-236-cv

v.

K

EL & P ARTNERS LLC and K EL K ELLY
,
Defendants-Appellees

.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Leonard A. Bellavia, Steven H. Blatt, and Mark Gaffney, Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, P.C., Mineola, NY.

* The Honorable John G. Koeltl, of the United Stat es District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.2 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, and Michael Gibaldi, Sher Tremonte LLP, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is

AFFIRMED

.
Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, P.C. appeals fr om a judgment entered on December 28, 2015 resulting from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Kel & Partners LLC and Kel Kelly on December 16, 2015. We have reviewed a ll of the arguments raised by Bellavia Blatt on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the December 28, 2015 judgment of the District Court for substantially th e reasons stated by the District Court in its wellreasoned Memorandum and Orde r filed December 16, 2015.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
#### Wayne CHUNG, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara JOHNSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17607.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 6, 2011.

Wayne Chung, MD, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Thomas A. Blake, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wayne Chung, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the suspension and probation of his medical license by the Medical Board of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to state a claim); *Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med.,*363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004) (immunity). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Chung’s federal constitutional claims was proper on the basis of absolute immunity. *See Olsen,*363 F.3d at 926 (state medical board members, professional staff, and counsel “function in a sufficiently judicial and prosecutorial capacity to entitle them to absolute immunity”); *Paine v. City of Lompoc,*265 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2001) (witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity for them testimony in judicial proceedings).

To the extent that defendants’ alleged conduct is not protected by absolute immunity, the district court properly dismissed Chung’s action because Chung failed to *537allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also Saucier v. Katz,*533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that does not violate a clearly-established constitutional right).

Chung’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Chung’s documents and facts that were not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. '
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-09128 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/17/02 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16018]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Boundary Establishment for Sturgeon National Wild and Scenic 
River, Ottawa National Forest, Baraga and Houghton Counties, Michigan

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act, the USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, is transmitting the 
final boundary for the Sturgeon National Wild and Scenic River to 
Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information may be obtained by 
contacting Jordan Ketola, Forest Land Surveyor, by telephone at (906) 
428-5825 or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2a88d9086838ccc8987968d8e83a297918683cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e04213c2a2f2060252b3a21222f0e3b3d2a2f60292138">[email protected]</span></a>. Alternatively, contact 
the Ottawa National Forest Supervisor's Office at (906) 932-1330 or 
online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/contactus/ottawa/about-forest/contactus. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the 
hearing-impaired (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern 
Daylight Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sturgeon Wild and Scenic River boundary 
description and map are available for review on the Ottawa National 
Forest website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/ottawa/alerts-notices.
    Due to COVID-19 health and safety protocols to protect employees 
and visitors, many Forest Service offices are closed to the public. The 
Sturgeon Wild and Scenic River boundary description and maps are 
available for review at the following offices if arrangements are made 
in advance: USDA, Forest Service, Yates Building, 201 14th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20024, phone (800) 832-1355; Eastern Regional Office, 
626 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202, phone (414) 297-3600; 
and Ottawa National Forest Supervisor's Office, E6248 US2, Ironwood, MI 
49938, phone (906) 932-1330. Please contact the appropriate office 
prior to arrival.
    The Michigan Scenic River Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-249, dated March 
3, 1992) designated Sturgeon River, Michigan as a National Wild and 
Scenic River, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As 
specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until 90 days 
after Congress receives the transmittal.

    Dated: July 11, 2021.
Jennifer Eberlien,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2021-16018 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,384,802
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,300,242
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,172,453
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         6,128,530
<LOANS>                                     22,932,379
<ALLOWANCE>                                     72,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,779,351
<DEPOSITS>                                  25,644,434
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            383,572
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7604
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,743,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              36,779,351
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,821,537
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              181,120
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               346,100
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,348,757
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,157,550
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,157,550
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,191,207
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   11,587
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                928,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                307,536
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     307,536
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   208,536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.80
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                60,200
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      187
<RECOVERIES>                                       400
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               72,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            72,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 Radiologix, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sami S. Abbasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ SAMI S. ABBASI                                  
|Sami S. Abbasi President and Chief Executive
Officer

Dated: May 4, 2006

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