alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Christopher J. Policinski, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Land O’Lakes, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. 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 the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2006           By: /s/ Chris Policinski             Christopher J. Policinski
Opinion issued August 23, 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 00568
- CV

——————————— IN RE MICROCHECK SYSTEMS, INC., AND MICROCHECK SOLUTIONS, INC. , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION2 In this original proceeding, Relators MicroCheck System, Inc. and MicroCheck Solutions, Inc. seek relief from two interlocutory trial court orders dismissing certain claims as preempted by federal law. 1 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

.

1 The underlying case is MicroCheck Systems, Inc. v. Zigrossi & Murphy, L.L.C. , No. 2004

- 59790, in the 125th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon. Kyle Carter, presiding.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1

                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         The undersigned, Steven G. Murdock, the Chief Executive Officer of
Meade Instruments Corp. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, hereby
certifies that:

                  (i) the Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2003 of the Company (the "Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: October 15, 2003

By: /s/ Steven G. Murdock

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                       18
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6827

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JAMES DARREN TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00177-RLV; 3:94-cr-00040-RLV-4) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Darren Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Darren Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Taylor’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Taylor’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Boylan, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered April 18, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon his plea óf guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a raid of a used car lot and an alleged consensual search of his home garage. The record discloses that defendant had no connection with the lot where the two cars seized were being offered for sale. Nor does the record disclose any other basis from which defendant could even argue that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicles seized on the lot. Consequently, the County Court correctly concluded that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure conducted on that lot *(People v Ponder,*54 NY2d 160).

The search conducted at defendant’s house was allegedly done with the consent of defendant’s wife. The evidence adduced at the hearing presented significant issues of credibility and we find no reason to disturb the hearing court’s resolution of these issues *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726). In that context, the record discloses that the People met their burden of showing that a voluntary consent to the search was made under the totality of the circumstances *(People v Gonzalez,*39 NY2d 122; *People v Zimmerman,*101 AD2d 294). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.01 HARTFORD LIFE, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas M. Marra, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hartford Life, 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;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 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)
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions
contained in SEC Release 34-47986];c)
    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; andd)
    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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 functions):  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; andb)
    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: May 2, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Thomas M. MarraThomas M. MarraPresident and Chief Operating Officer
 38
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on August 11, 2021.

# PLACE:

1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC. (This meeting will be a virtual meeting).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.

Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and production would disclose investigative techniques.

Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

* * * * *

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-16864 Filed 8-3-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### MARKET & FULTON NAT. BANK v. NEW YORK FUR CUTTING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 14, 1896.)

No opinion. Order modified so that, instead of the receiver being substituted in place and stead of defendant corporation, the receiver be brought in and made a party defendant, and authorized to defend the suit, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1249 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1249

     To allow depository institutions to offer negotiable order of 
withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the 
    payment of interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 1997

  Mr. Hagel (for himself and Mr. Reed) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To allow depository institutions to offer negotiable order of 
withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the 
    payment of interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Banking Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SAVINGS AND DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS AT 
              DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

    (a) Now Accounts Authorized for All Businesses.--Section 2 of 
Public Law 93-100 (12 U.S.C. 1832) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS BY NEGOTIABLE OR TRANSFERABLE INSTRUMENTS FOR 
              TRANSFERS TO THIRD PARTIES.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any depository 
institution (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act) may permit the owner of any deposit or account at that institution 
on which interest or dividends are paid to make withdrawals from such 
deposit or account by negotiable or transferable instruments for the 
purpose of making payments to third parties.''.
    (b) Repeal of Prohibitions on Payment of Interest on Demand 
Deposits.--
            (1) Federal reserve act.--Section 19(i) of the Federal 
        Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(i) [Reserved].''.
            (2) Home owners' loan act.--Section 5(b)(1)(B) of the Home 
        Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
                    (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``savings 
                association may not--'' and all that follows through 
                ``(ii) permit any'' and inserting ``savings association 
                may not permit any'';
                    (B) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)''; and
                    (C) by striking ``All savings'' and inserting the 
                following:
                    ``(ii) All savings''.
            (3) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 18(g) of the 
        Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(g)) is amended to 
        read as follows:
    ``(g) [Reserved].''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018301EN.01002501.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità v Commission

(Case T-186/15) (1)

((State aid - Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid and new aid - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification - Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 - Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid - Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court - Temporal application of the rules of substantive law - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 301/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Declares that Asstra Associazione Trasporti is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that Asstra Associazione Trasporti is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1251

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount of

private activity bonds which may be issued in each State, and to index

such amount for inflation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 1997

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the amount of private activity bonds which may be issued

in each State, and to index such amount for inflation.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN STATE CEILING ON PRIVATE AC4 TIVITY BONDS.

5 (a) REPEAL OF POST-1987 REDUCTION.—Subsection

6 (d) of section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

7 (relating to State ceiling) is amended by striking para8 graph (2).
2

•S 1251 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATE CEILING FOR IN2 CREASES IN COST-OF-LIVING.—Subsection (d) of section

3 146 of such Code is amended by inserting after paragraph

4 (1) the following new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(2) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.—

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a cal7 endar year after 1998, each of the dollar

8 amounts contained in paragraph (1) shall be in9 creased by an amount equal to—

10 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by

11 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de12 termined under section 1(f)(3) for such

13 calendar year by substituting ‘calendar

14 year 1997’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub15 paragraph (B) thereof.

16 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any increase under

17 subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of the appli18 cable dollar amount, such increase shall be

19 rounded to the nearest applicable dollar

20 amount. For purposes of the preceding sen21 tence, the applicable dollar amount is—

22 ‘‘(i) $1 in the case of an adjustment

23 of the $75 amount in paragraph (1)(A),

24 and
3

•S 1251 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) $5 in the case of an adjustment

2 of the $250 amount in paragraph (1)(B).’’

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section shall apply to calendar years after 1997.

Æ