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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’sdisclosure 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 small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August12, 2005
#### In the Matter of Luke Matthews, Fetitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 681]—

Rose, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After confidential information was received by the Inspector General’s office that petitioner was conspiring to smuggle drugs into the correctional facility in which he was incarcerated, petitioner’s telephone calls were monitored and recorded. As a result of those calls, prison officials believed that petitioner was, indeed, conspiring with his family, and when petitioner’s wife came to visit several weeks later, she was intercepted by officials. Because she refused to submit to a search, however, no drugs were found and she was released. Nevertheless, based upon the telephone calls, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with conspiracy to possess drugs, smuggling, abuse of telephone privileges and violation of visiting room procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of *1530all charges. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, after which petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

To the extent that petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the finding of guilt was based, we find that the misbehavior report, recorded telephone calls and testimony of the investigator provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Stinson v Prack,*87 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2011]; *Matter of Minton v Fischer,*73 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2010], *appeal dismissed*15 NY3d 848 [2010]). We reject petitioner’s contention that he could not be found guilty of violating visiting room procedures when he did not actually enter the visiting room, inasmuch as inmates involved in a conspiracy or an attempt to violate a disciplinary rule will be liable to the same degree as violators of such rules, “whether or not the text of an actual rule contains such terms” (7 NYCRR 270.3 [b]; *see Matter of Gomez v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2011]). Petitioner was not denied relevant documents, as the documents requested either did not exist or were confidential based upon ongoing investigations *(see Matter of Dennis v Bezio,*82 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2011]; *Matter of Umoja v Bezio,*64 AD3d 1066, 1066 [2009]). Finally, our review of the record demonstrates that petitioner’s guilt was premised upon the evidence presented at the hearing, rather than any alleged hearing officer bias *(see Matter of Lopez v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2012]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM PURCHASE
POINT MEDIA  CORPORATION  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE TWELVE
MONTHS  THEN  ENDED  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001065
<NAME>                        PURCHASE POINT MEDIA CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                  97
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18,584
<PP&E>                                               4,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      48,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              804,454
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            170
<COMMON>                                           260,497
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,016,568)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        48,553
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      418,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (458,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (458,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (458,843)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.04)



</TABLE>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 230 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget 

deficit should not include cuts to Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2011 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BROWN

of Ohio, Mr. MERKLEY, and Mr. FRANKEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that any agreement to 

reduce the budget deficit should not include cuts to Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits. 

Whereas over 34,000,000 retired workers currently receive 

Social Security benefits in amounts that average a modest $14,100 a year; 

Whereas, in 2008, 23 percent of retired workers receiving Social Security benefits depended on those benefits for all 

or almost all of their income; 

Whereas according to AARP, Social Security benefits kept 36 

percent of seniors out of poverty in 2008; 

Whereas reducing Social Security benefits would cause many 

seniors to have to choose between food, drugs, rent, and 

heat; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 230 IS 

Whereas 95 percent of seniors in the United States, who 

numbered almost 37,000,000 in 2008, got their health 

care coverage through the Medicare program; 

Whereas without Medicare benefits, seniors, many of whom 

live off of Social Security benefits, would have to turn to 

the costly and uncertain private market for health care 

coverage; 

Whereas the Social Security program and the Medicare program are extremely successful social insurance programs 

that permit seniors in America to retire with dignity and 

security after a lifetime of hard work; and 

Whereas the Social Security program and the Medicare program help relieve young American families from worry 

about their own futures, allowing freedom of opportunity 

in America: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that any 

2 agreement to reduce the budget deficit should not include 

3 cuts to Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
\ oe
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JAY F. FLANAGAN, JAMES W.
CARSON, JOHN M. CHANEY, and
DONALD W. JONES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
et al.,

Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 01 C 1541
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Illinois corporation, and the AGENT
TRANSITION SEVERANCE PLAN,

wee vw we Ye YY Se

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

We have been reminded (and we were glad for the reminder) that defendants’ motion
for reconsideration, pending since April 29, 2005, had yet to be ruled upon. We do so now, and
we deny it.

On March 1, 2005, we changed course somewhat and ruled that the class had to be a
Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Court of Appeals ruled eight days later that any class had to bea Rule
23(b)(3) class. But, say defendants, that means thousands of separate trials or hearings on
causation and damages, even if the class were to prevail upon common issues.

We recognize the problem. But if each class member had to sue separately there would
be the same trials or hearings on causation and damages if he or she prevailed on the “policy”
issue — unless the cost of litigation discouraged many from advancing individual claims. Thus
trial time would be increased by the countless repetition of the evidence relating to a single

common issue,


No. 01. C 1541 Page 2

We think that is what the Court of Appeals had in mind in In re: Allstate Ins. Co., 400
F.3d 505, 508 (7" Cir. 2005), when it stated as follows:

This is not to say that the case is unsuitable for class treatment It may
well be highly suitable. A single hearing may be all that’s necessary to
determine whether Allstate had a policy of forcing its employee agents to quit.
This issue could be decided first and then individual hearings conducted to
determine which of the members of the class were actually affected by the policy
rather than having decided to quit for their own reasons. Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(c)(4)(A). That would be a more efficient procedure than litigating the class-
wide issue of Allstate’s policy anew in more than a thousand separate lawsuits.
We explained this kind of hybrid procedure in Carnegie v. Household
International Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7" Cir. 2004), and need not repeat the
explanation here.

That is what this court had in mind, and we continue to adhere to that view.

JAMES B. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. S. District Court

Wan I! 2006.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Prunus - Almond Inventoryheadline bar Main


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**Exhibit13.1**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to**

** **

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

** **

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form20-F of Koninklijke KPN N.V., a public company with limited liability organizedunder the laws of The Netherlands (the “Company”), for the period endingDecember 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Companycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge,that:

 

1.)                                  the Reportfully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Report.

 
| Dated: March 8, 2004 | /s/ AD SCHEEPBOUWER                   |   |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Ad  Scheepbouwer                      |
|                 | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |                                  |
|                 |                                  |
| Dated: March 8, 2004 | /s/  MAARTEN HENDERSON                |   |
|                 | Maarten Henderson                     |
|                 | Chief  Financial Officer              |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6399

DUSTIN JAMAL WARREN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN BARNEY OWENS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02206-FL)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dustin Jamal Warren, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6399 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dustin Jamal Warren seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Warren has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6399 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 226 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President does not have the 

authority to ignore the statutory debt limit by ordering the Secretary 

of the Treasury to continue issuing debt on the full faith and credit 

of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 7, 2011 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. MCCAIN, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. COATS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. JOHANNS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. RISCH) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President does 

not have the authority to ignore the statutory debt limit 

by ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to continue 

issuing debt on the full faith and credit of the United 

States. 

Whereas clause 2 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution 

of the United States gives Congress the power ‘‘[t]o borrow Money on the credit of the United States’’; 

Whereas the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States says, ‘‘The validity of the public debt of 

the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 226 IS 

in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be 

questioned.’’; 

Whereas Congress has historically limited the Federal debt, 

either by specifically authorizing the issuance of new debt 

instruments, or through imposing an aggregate limit on 

Federal debt; 

Whereas the statutory debt limit was established by an Act 

of Congress and signed into law by the President in 

1982; and 

Whereas the debt subject to limit has been increased through 

an Act of Congress and Presidential signature 38 times 

since 1982: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate that the 

2 President does not have the authority to ignore the statu3 tory debt limit by ordering the Secretary of the Treasury 

4 to continue issuing debt on the full faith and credit of the 

5 United States. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1973

___________

Frank R. Owens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Tim Severin; John Ault; Jack Bates, *

c/o; Donald Schbrenner; Darrell * [UNPUBLISHED]

Moeller, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 15, 2008

Filed: October 30, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated matters, we affirmed, or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,

all but one of the district court’s1

 rulings, that being the denial of Owens’s motion for

substitute counsel in No. 08-1973. We remanded that aspect of the appeal for a fuller

explanation by the district court of the basis of its decision to deny that motion. See

Owens v. Severin, Nos. 08-1418/1973/2110, slip op. (8th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008).
-2-

Having reviewed the district court’s promptly filed and fully explicated

response to the remand, we conclude that the district court “exercised a reasoned and

well-informed discretion” in denying the motion. See Slaughter v. City of

Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we now affirm the

denial of the motion for substitute counsel.

______________________________
|   | 1.                They are the chief executive officer and chief financial officer,                respectively of SpaceDev, Inc. (the                "Company"); |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2.                The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period                ended                September 30, 2007, that this certification accompanies, fully complies                with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act                of 1934; and, |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3.                The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|