alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**PERIODIC REPORT CERTIFICATION**

**of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, Dennis C. Pence, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Coldwater Creek Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the annual period ending February 1, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

/S/    DENNIS C. PENCE

 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 

April 25, 2003 

 

I, Melvin Dick,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Coldwater Creek Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the annualperiod ending February 1, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

/S/    MELVIN DICK

 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

April 25, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                             498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   498
<PP&E>                                           3,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,252
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,975)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,975)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,975)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018745
<NAME> CSR GOLF GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          84,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,043,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                   323,901
<INVENTORY>                                    295,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,191,553
<PP&E>                                      16,051,290
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,027,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,395,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          557,870
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,335,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,395,676
<SALES>                                      1,844,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,760,199
<CGS>                                          840,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,518,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                66,418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,233,593
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,233,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,233,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Caryn A. Consilio, Appellant, v Christopher Terrigino, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 364]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Thomas W Polito, R.), entered March 17, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied the petition.

*1425It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, petitioner mother appeals from an order that denied her petition to modify a prior stipulated order of custody and visitation. The prior stipulated order, inter alia, granted the mother visitation with the parties’ child on alternate Saturdays at the correctional facility where she was incarcerated. The mother sought to modify the prior stipulated order to permit overnight visitation with the child through the Family Reunion Program at the correctional facility. The Referee concluded that the mother failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior stipulated order, but the Referee nevertheless stated that, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it was not in the best interests of the child to have overnight visitation with the mother at the correctional facility.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the mother established a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether overnight visitation was in the best interests of the child *(see Matter of Black v Watson,*81 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2011], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*17 NY3d 747 [2011]; *see also Matter of Di Fiore v Scott,*2 AD3d 1417, 1417-1418 [2003]), we see no basis to disturb the Referee’s determination “inasmuch as it was based on [his] credibility assessments of the witnesses and ‘is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” *(Matter of Krug v Krug,*55 AD3d 1373, 1374 [2008]; *see Black,*81 AD3d at 1316-1317). We further conclude that any error by the Referee in admitting certain photographs in evidence without proper authentication is harmless *(see generally Matter of Shane MM. v Family & Children Servs.,*280 AD2d 699, 701 [2001]), inasmuch as the Referee did not rely on those photographs in denying the mother’s petition to modify the prior stipulated order *(see Matter of Graham v Thering,*55 AD3d 1319, 1320 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 714 [2009]; *Matter of Tracy v Tracy,*309 AD2d 1252, 1253 [2003]; *Matter of Michael G.,*300 AD2d 1144, 1145 [2002]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
PRESS RELEASE Contact: Mallory Trachtenberg

April 4, 2024 mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov

Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Issues

Addendum to Report: The Right to Criminal Legal Defense in Maine

The Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has released a 

report addendum following their November report on the right to criminal legal defense in Maine. 

Despite increased public attention to Maine’s lack of public defenders since the Committee first took 

testimony on this issue in 2022, Maine has not provided a system of fully funded public defense that 

meets the current need. With this in mind, the Committee is releasing an addendum to highlight the 

barriers that currently exist to fully funding a system for indigent public defense in Maine. 

The Committee received testimony in December 2023 from State Senator and Chair of the 

Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, Anne Carney, and Maine Commission on Public Defense Services 

(formerly, the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services, or, MCILS) Executive Director Jim 

Billings. 

The Committee was encouraged by Senator Carney’s and Executive Director Billings’ testimony on 

recent legislative proposals and potential pathways towards fully funding a system of public defense. 

Based on the testimony received, the Committee recommends that the Maine Legislature allocate and 

Governor Mills ensure sustainable, long-term funding for building a system for public defense in 

Maine that is in line with the proposed plan by MCILS, and urges all involved parties to continue 

building the capacity of Maine’s public defense offices. 

Committee Chair Samantha Le said, “The Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights is grateful to Senator Anne Carney and Executive Director Jim Billings for sharing their 

perspectives on the current barriers to fully funding a system of public defense. We hope that our 

recommendations will encourage Maine to invest in building a sustainable and equitable system of 

public defense in Maine. We are hopeful for meaningful change in Maine’s indigent legal services, 

and are keeping an eye on the Legislative response on this issue.”

### 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, is the only independent, bipartisan 

agency charged with advising the President and Congress on civil rights and reporting annually on federal civil rights 

enforcement. Our 51 state Advisory Committees offer a broad perspective on civil rights concerns at state and local 

levels. The Commission: inour 7th decade, a continuing legacy of influence in civil rights. For information about the 

Commission, please visit www.usccr.gov and follow us on X and Facebook.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,298,625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,386,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                    92,276
<INVENTORY>                                  8,446,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,262,530
<PP&E>                                       6,161,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                 520,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,924,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,425,769
<BONDS>                                     12,350,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       291,956
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,856,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,924,319
<SALES>                                     17,800,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,800,994
<CGS>                                       13,921,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,921,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,607,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,377,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,903,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,903,758)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                304,923
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,598,835)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,553
<SECURITIES>                                       205
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,052
<PP&E>                                          11,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (493)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,818
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,540
<SALES>                                         30,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,490
<CGS>                                           28,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  86
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    416
<INCOME-TAX>                                       140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of CBA Industries, Inc., Petitioner, v Suzanne Beddoe, as Chair of the Environmental Control Board, et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 466]

Determination of respondent Environmental Control Board (ECB), dated November 18, 2010, which imposed civil penalties *518totaling $500 for two violations of General Business Law § 397-a, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered August 26, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports ECB’s determination that petitioner is liable for two violations of General Business Law § 397-a for causing or permitting unsolicited advertising materials bearing its name and telephone number to be placed by an independent subcontractor on private properties at which signs prohibiting placement of advertising materials were conspicuously posted (General Business Law § 397-a [1]; *see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]). The fact that petitioner’s name and telephone number were affixed to the offending packages raised a statutory presumption that it should be liable for the violations *(see*General Business Law § 397-a [3]).

Petitioner’s contention that it should not be held liable for the acts of an independent subcontractor that it did not control is unavailing. Petitioner admitted that its name and telephone number are placed on its advertising materials in order to make itself accountable and in a position to remedy customer complaints. The record thus supports ECB’s determination that petitioner retained at least some control over the manner in which its materials were distributed (see *Cheong Mei Inc. v Environmental Control Bd. of the City of N.Y.,*81 AD3d 452 [2011]; *see also Smart Workout, Inc. v Environmental Control Bd. of the City of N.Y.,*79 AD3d 492 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jon A. DeLuca, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, 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 condensed consolidated interim financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 registered public accounting firm 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: November 10, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    JON A.
DELUCA                 
|Jon A. DeLuca                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2162 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2162

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
               deduction for mortgage insurance premiums.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
               deduction for mortgage insurance premiums.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS TREATED AS 
              QUALIFIED RESIDENCE INTEREST.

    (a) In General.--Subclause (I) of section 163(h)(3)(E)(iv) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2014'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or accrued after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lawrence Lyon et al., Respondents, v Mary Tomczyk, Defendant, and New York State Electric & Gas Corp., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Bradley & Williams, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Memorandum: The court erred in vacating an order of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 since there was neither an affidavit of merit nor an adequate excuse for the lengthy delay *(see, Fluman v TSS Dept. Stores,*100 AD2d 838). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, DiFlorio, J. — restore case to Trial Calendar.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
#### Michael Diederich, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Rockland County Police Chiefs’ Association, Defendant, and Town of Orangetown et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 13, 2007;

decided February 22, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

S.B.,

Respondent

v.

S.S.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 8 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of February , 2017, the Application for the Exercise of

King’s Bench Power or Extraor d inary Jurisdiction is DENIED

.