alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 RULE 13-A-14 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph. D., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Entrada Networks, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 period presented in this quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) 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)   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; and
 
 (c)   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 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; and
 
 (b)  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:  June 14, 2004
 
 /s/ Kanwar Chadha ,
 Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph. D.
 Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Robert Ladd, Interim Chief Executive Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
/s/ ROBERT LADDRobert LaddInterim Chief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2011
Listen

# Commission Sends Letters to Connecticut Attorney General & Legislators Transmitting Advisory Committee Memorandum on Prosecutorial Practices

October 8, 2019

Letters

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in the Registration statement on Form S-3
(No. 333-85808), the Registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-75792), and the Registration statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-75788) of our report dated January 31, 2003, on our audits of the financial statements of Precis, Inc.

/s/ MURRELL, HALL, McINTOSH & CO., PLLP.

Norman,
Oklahoma
March 29, 2004

---

QuickLinks
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2097

___________ Thomas G. Wolfin, Jr., * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jessie Crump; Randy Grass; James * Eastern District of Missouri. Reed; Jeffrey A. Burgert, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1998 Filed: May 18, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Th omas G. Wolfin Jr. appeals from the district court’s order dismissing hi s 1 compla int with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure t o comply wi th the court’s pretrial-compliance order. Given Wolfin & s pattern o f noncompliance throughout the proceedings and the warning he received, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo. , 135 F.3d 1216, 1219-22 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; “dismissal with prejudice-2-

is not subject to reversal . . . where appellant has engaged in several acts of wilfu l noncompliance with orders of the court”). Accordingly, we affirm. We den y appellees & motion to strike appellant & s brief. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1

PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three-months ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

March 17, 2006



By:

/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
Exhibit 23.1

              Consent of Ernst & Young LLP as Independent Auditors

We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  to our firm under the  caption
"Experts" in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66375)  pertaining to
the Capital  Title Group,  Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan of our report dated March
3, 2000 with respect to the 1999 consolidated  financial  statements included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Capital Title Group, Inc.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young

Phoenix, Arizona
March 26, 2001
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7284** 
BASIL W. AKBAR, a/k/a Melvin T. Brown , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden , Respondent

- Appell ee .

**No. 13**  **- 7286** 

BASIL W. AKBAR , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. MICHAEL MCCALL , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at R ock Hill
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 0:13

- cv - 00549

- DCN; 0:13

- cv - 00702

- DCN )

Submi tted : October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Basil Akbar , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Basil Akbar seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as unauthorized Akbar’s successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition s . The order is not
appea lable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006)
. 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDanie l , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). 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. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Akbar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the certificate s of appealability a nd dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal4 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2018 

To ensure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority complies 

with auditing standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To ensure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports 

Authority complies with auditing standards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUDITING STANDARDS REQUIREMENT. 

4 No Federal funds may be made available to the Met5 ropolitan Washington Airports Authority unless the Sec6 retary of the Department of Transportation certifies that 

7 the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is com8 plying with appropriate auditing standards. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Listen

# Public Comments

The Commission routinely seeks public comments on the substance of its briefings. Our public comment period is 30 days following the date of the hearing or briefing unless provided otherwise.

## Latest Briefing

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a briefing on Friday, March 24, 2023, on the federal government’s response to anti-Asian racism in the United States. At this public briefing, Commissioners heard from subject matter experts such as government officials, academics, policy experts, law enforcement, and advocates. The Commission will accept written materials from the public for consideration as we prepare our report; please submit to antiasianhatecrimes@usccr.gov no later than April 24, 2023.

## Privacy Notice

The public comments you provide to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are collected voluntarily and may be publicly disclosed on the Internet and/or via requests submitted to the Commission under the Freedom of Information Act. By providing public comments you are consenting to their use and consideration by the Commission, and to their public dissemination.

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings    -  Public Comments 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 11

                      Amerin Corporation and Subsidiaries
               Statement of Computation of Per Share Net Income 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                 1997            1996
                                                             -------------   -------------
                                                           (in thousands, except per share
                                                                         amounts)
<S>                                                            <C>              <C>
Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     $8,669           $5,674
                                                                 --------         --------
                                                                 --------         --------

Average shares outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     26,086           26,010
Common stock equivalents from dilutive
  stock options, based on the treasury
  stock method using average market
  price    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        288              333
                                                                 --------         --------
     Total shares -- primary basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     26,374           26,343


Additional common stock equivalents  from dilutive stock
options, based on the treasury stock method using closing
market price, if higher  than average market price . . . . . .         --                4
                                                                 --------         --------
     Total shares -- fully diluted . . . . . . . .                 26,374           26,347
                                                                 --------         --------
                                                                 --------         --------
Net income per share -- primary. . . . . . . . . .                  $0.33            $0.22
                                                                 --------         --------
                                                                 --------         --------
Net income per share -- fully diluted. . . . . . .                  $0.33            $0.22
                                                                 --------         --------
                                                                 --------         --------
</TABLE>
Listen

# Annual Statutory Enforcement Reports

-    First  
-    Previous  
-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
#### Hill *v.*McBryde.

*Action lo recover for Breach of Contract.*

1. *Pleading and practice; when judgment will not he reversed on appeal for errors committed on ruling of' trial court.*— Where in an action for the breach of a contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment assessing nominal damages, and it is shown by the evidence introduced on the trial that the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge upon the issues presented, errors committed by the court in special rulings will not work a reversal of such judgment; since in such a case the errors are without injury to appellant:

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson.

Tried before the Hon. James A. Bilbro.

This action was brought by the appellant against the appellee. The facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at one dollar. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.

T. A. Bostick, for appellant.

*543John B. Tally, *contra.*

TYSON, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff; against the defendant for the ‘breach of an.agreement in wiiich the defendant promised to’ pay tíe plaintiff two hundred and twenty-five dollars for services to be-rendered by him in floating certain timber owned by the plaintiff from a certain point on Hurricane creek to-Paint Bock Station, a point on Paint Bock river. The c-nly breach of the contract as alleged is in these .words: “That 'the plaintiff had placed said timber in 'said Hurricane, creek and before he had an. opportunity-to float, said 'timber, the defendant removed said timber from said Hurricane creek and thereby placed if beyond the power of the plaintiff to perform his-part of the contract.”

The defendant filed four pleas. Plea one denies the* allegations of the complaint. Plea’ two denies that plaintiff placed the timber in Hurricane creek. The-other -two deny that the timber was removed before-plaintiff had opportunity to float it and the plaintiff’s-readiness to perform the contract.

It was an admitted fact in the evidence that only a portion of the timber, about one-half of it, was placed by the plaintiff in Hurricane creek. The plaintiff has; not only faded to prove the breach of the contract as alleged, but the averments of the defendant’s plea No. 2’ were proven beyond adverse inference. On this state-of the pleadings and proof, the defendant being entitled to the general affirmative charge, any errors committed by the court in special rulings ‘are not ground of reversal' at the instance of the party appealing, since they could not have injured *him.*— Glass *v. Mayer,*124 Ala. 332, and authorities therein cited.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,818
<SECURITIES>                                     4,219
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,231)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,608
<PP&E>                                          11,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,732)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,544
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,035
<SALES>                                         20,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,695
<CGS>                                            8,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   653
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,645)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,842)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)


</TABLE>
# C_2021375EN.01000101.xml

| 17.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10206 — Mayr-Melnhof Karton/International Paper (Poland))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 375/01)

On 19 September 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10206. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10206. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---