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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,John L. McGannon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-K of Document Sciences Corporation; 

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Basedon 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 periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. I am responsible forestablishing 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 mysupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 inthe 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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 19, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Everett C. McIntosh, II, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 834]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered October 28, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of attempted robbery in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a bench trial of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [3]) and attempted grand larceny in the third degree (§§ 110.00, 155.35 [1]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence in two respects, i.e., that defendant was attempting to exercise control of the victims’ vehicle in a manner inconsistent with their ownership rights, and that he used force in an attempt to retain control of the property. We reject defendant’s contention and conclude that the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence in both of those respects *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

By failing to object to County Court’s ultimate *Sandoval*ruling, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion *(see People v Walker,*66 AD3d 1331 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 942 [2010]). In any event, “the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the [court] would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the [alleged] error. Thus, the [alleged] error is harmless” *(People v Arnold,*298 AD2d 895, 896 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 580 [2003]; *see generally People v Grant,*7 NY3d 421, 423-425 [2006]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel’s failure to *1406raise an intoxication defense, “inasmuch as there was *‘a*paucity of evidence that defendant exhibited significant signs of intoxication or that his mental state was affected by alcohol’ ” *(People v Murphy,*68 AD3d 1730, 1731 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 843 [2010]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jessie Ramirez, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 692]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis J. Boyle, J., at suppression hearing; Analisa Torres, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 21, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

*475The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The arresting officer’s testimony that he received a radio transmission from a ghost officer about a drug sale, along with the arresting officer’s knowledge of the ghost’s role in the planned undercover operation, permitted an inference that the transmission was based on the ghost officer’s presumptively reliable observations *(see People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416, 420-421 [1999]). This report provided probable cause to arrest defendant once the officer saw him in the vicinity of the drug transaction about five minutes after receiving the radio report and observed that he matched the sufficiently detailed description provided in that report *(see e.g. People v Ramos,*287 AD2d 305 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 658 [2001]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6024

TERRY CHARLES WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-925) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Charles Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Terry Charles Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his action challenging his convictions and sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Williams filed his claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Because he was challenging his convictions and sentence, the district court construed his action as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and denied relief on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. Williams’ claim for relief under § 2241 is unavailing because he does not meet the test for proceeding under this statute as set forth in In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### A.J.P. Auto Sales Limited, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Peter Dejana et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 872]

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 20, inter alia, to determine claims to an easement and for injunctive relief, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered June 8, 2011, which, after a *887nonjury trial, among other things, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them, enjoining the defendants from, inter alia, interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the subject easement.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs and the defendants own neighboring parcels of real property. The plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 20, inter alia, to determine their claims to an alleged easement over a certain portion of the defendants’ property, as described in the deed conveying the burdened property to the defendants’ predecessor-in-interest, and enjoining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the easement. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court, among other things, determined that the plaintiffs established the existence of an easement and enjoined the defendants from, inter alia, interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the subject easement.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the plaintiffs established at trial the existence of an easement, as to which the defendants had notice in the defendants’ recorded chain of title *(see Corrarino v Byrnes,*43 AD3d 421, 423 [2007]; *Breakers Motel v Sunbeach Montauk Two,*224 AD2d 473, 474 [1996]). Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that its prior orders denying the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctive relief, did not constitute the law of the case *(see J. A. Preston Corp. v Fabrication Enters.,*68 NY2d 397, 402 [1986]).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
(November 24, 1986)

#### Affiliated Credit Adjusters, Inc., Respondent, v Carlucci & Legum et al., Appellants.

Special Term properly held that the plaintiffs complaint filed with the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District was privileged and is not actionable *(see, Wiener v Weintraub,*22 NY2d 330; *Bein v Lewis,*47 AD2d 538). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Case: 14-35985, 05/12/2016, ID: 9975150, DktEntry: 42, Page 1 of 2 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2016 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

CRUM & FOSTER SPECIALITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

WILLOWOOD USA, LLC; et al., 

Defendants - Appellants, 

V. 

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE 

COMPANY (U.S.); et al., 

Defendants - Appellees. 

WILLOWOOD USA, LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; et 

al., 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Lking 5/9/16/Pro Mo 

No. 14-35985 

D.C. No. 6:13-cv-01923-MC 

District of Oregon, 

Eugene 

ORDER 

No. 16-35222 

D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01050-MC 

District of Oregon, 

Eugene 

r 

I 

Case 6:15-cv-01050-MC Document 52 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-35985, 05/12/2016, ID: 9975150, DktEntry: 42, Page 2 of 2 

Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner. l l 

Appellees' motion for reconsideration of the Clerk's April 15, 2016, order is 

denied. 

The current briefing schedule in No. 16-35222 remains in effect. 

Appellees are reminded that the date of the notice of appeal for the earlier 

case will govern calendaring priority. See General Orders 3.3(c) 

Lking 5/9/16/Pro Mo 

Case 6:15-cv-01050-MC Document 52 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jennifer Beykirch, Appellant. Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

— Main, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 21, 1986, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant does not challenge the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. These facts are as follows. Claimant worked as a residence counselor in a home for mentally handicapped women from September 1983 until December 1984. On December 7, 1984, claimant was attacked by a developmentally disabled resident. While attempting to restrain the resident, claimant became angry and slammed the resident’s body to the floor several times. The ALJ found that this behavior was contrary to the employer’s rules and therefore constituted misconduct. Claimant contends that, as a matter of law, her actions constituted bad judgment at most but did not rise to the level of misconduct.

We affirm the Board’s decision. While a discharge of an employee "for cause” does not necessarily mean that the employee has been discharged for misconduct *(Matter of Hulse [Levine],*41 NY2d 813), the question of whether a claimant was discharged for misconduct is a question of fact for the Board *(Matter of Zalobin [Roberts]*115 AD2d 168; *Matter of Effress [Levine] 52*AD2d 708). Misconduct will be found to exist if a claimant’s conduct is detrimental to the employer’s *858interest or in violation of a reasonable work condition *(Matter of Restifo [Roberts],*88 AD2d 1045). Here, testimony established that employees were not permitted to use force on a resident as claimant did in this matter. Thus, the Board could find that claimant’s actions were detrimental to her employer’s interest and contrary to her employer’s rules, and therefore constituted misconduct.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

  EXHIBIT 11.1


                                META GROUP, INC.

                    EXHIBIT TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                        MARCH 31,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2000          1999
                                                                               ----------    ----------
<S>                                                                            <C>           <C>
Net income..................................................................   $1,784,000    $1,309,000
                                                                               ==========    ==========

Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding:

     Average number of common shares
       outstanding during the period........................................   10,319,896    11,830,397

     Add common share equivalents -- options
       to purchase common shares and contingent shares......................    1,659,805     1,074,948
                                                                               ----------    ----------
              Total.........................................................   11,979,701    12,905,345
                                                                               ==========    ==========

Net income per diluted common share.........................................         $.15          $.10
                                                                                     ====          ====

Net income per basic common share...........................................         $.17          $.11
                                                                                     ====          ====
</TABLE>
ORIGINAL 

AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT u;J~H~~sJRLs ~awth 

UNDER SEAL 

United States of America 

v. 

JON RITZHEIMER 

Defendant 

for the 

District of Oregon 

) 

) Case No. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

, 16-fllJ-04 :J rJ<_ 

ARREST WARRANT 

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer 

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay 

(name of person to be arrested) Jon Ritzheimer ~;;..;..;..;.~:..=.:.:.:.:=-----------------------~ who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court: 

a Indictment a Superseding Indictment a Information a Superseding Information g Complaint 

Date: j.,,. 2(,, ~I' 

City and state: 

Return 

This warrant was received on (dale) 

at (city and $IDie) 

------, and the person was arrested on (date) ------

A.nvt/ng oJll«r '• slgnahll'e 

Prlnled name and title 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-HZ Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 1
# L_2009168EN.01002201.xml

| 30.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 168/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 168/22

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 567/2009

of 29 June 2009

entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Pierekaczewnik (TSG))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, and pursuant to Article 19(3) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Poland to enter the name ‘Pierekaczewnik’ in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, and pursuant to Article 19(3) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Poland to enter the name ‘Pierekaczewnik’ in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register.

| (3) | Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 269, 24.10.2008, p. 11.

2

---

ANNEX

Foodstuffs referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 509/2006:

Class 2.3.   Confectionery, bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other baker’s wares

POLAND

Pierekaczewnik (TSG)

---
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ Jennifer S. LeBlanc |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | Jennifer      S. LeBlanc |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | Chief      Financial Officer and Secretary |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:      February 17, 2009 |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   |                         |

----
#### Susan G. Simon, Appellant-Respondent v Sears, Roebuck & Company, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants.

The plaintiff suffered the loss of her left eye following an automobile accident in which the defendants were found to be 95% at fault in the happening of the accident. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence as to the excruciating pain she endured at the time of the accident, the futile attempts to save the eye, and the necessity of further surgery. The record also reveals that the plaintiff was able to resume her career as a registered nurse some three months after her initial hospitalization. Except for an absence occasioned by the necessity for follow-up surgery, the plaintiff has worked continuously. She has performed her job properly as evinced by her receipt of several wage increases. The plaintiff has also, subsequent to her accident, taken college courses preparatory to a degree in elementary education. She is licensed to drive a car and continues to do so. The testimony of the plaintiff’s treating physician was to the effect that the results of all surgical procedures performed were favorable with no untoward results and the postoperative course of treatment was described as "uneventful”. With respect to the injuries sustained in the accident, her physician described her as being "genuinely in good health”. In sum, the record reveals the plaintiff to be a productive member of society who has made an excellent *656adjustment to her injuries. Under the circumstances, the trial court was justified in reducing the amount of the damages awarded from $6,000,000 inasmuch as said amount was patently excessive *(see, e.g., Moskowitz v Massachusetts Inst. of Technology,*100 AD2d 810).

We disagree, however, with defendants’ contention that the reduced figure of the net principal sum of $1,000,000 was also excessive. By way of a guideline, this court, in the recent case of *Alferoff v Casagrande,*122 AD2d 183), upheld an award of $650,000 for pain and suffering on behalf of a girl who sustained the loss of vision of her left eye. The plaintiff therein neither required surgery nor suffered cosmetic damage. In view of the increased severity of the injury involved in the instant case, the award of the net sum of $1,000,000 was not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.