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

 

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT 

 

I, Roger D. Linquist, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MetroPCS, 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Theregistrant’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 suchdisclosure 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, particularlyduring 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 reportbased on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report anychange 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 materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

4. 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 or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: July 27, 2004 

 

/s/ Roger D. Linquist 

Roger D. Linquist 

Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Norman Bakos, Appellant, v Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Erie County, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J.—Election Law.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Leada Tak Tai Li, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA PRECISION
STEEL, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this
17th
day of May, 2010.





/s/
      Leada Tak Tai LiLeada
      Tak Tai LiChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Precision Steel, Inc. and will be retained by China Precision Steel, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
IF-352

 (Rev. 03/10)

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20544 Date: 9/17/13

GUIDE TO JUDICIARY POLICY

TRANSMITTAL 07-007 VOLUME/PART 7A CHAPTER(S) 3

TO: All United States Judges

Circuit Executives

Federal Public/Community Defenders

District Court Executives

Clerks, United States Courts of Appeals

Clerks, United States District Courts

Senior Staff Attorneys

CJA Panel Attorney District Representatives

Circuit Librarians

FROM: Judge John D. Bates 

RE: DEFENDER SERVICES

This transmittal provides notice of changes to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7 (Defender

Services), Pt. A (Guidelines for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes):

Chapter 3 – Authorization and Payment for Investigative, Expert, or Other Services

Section 320.40.20(d) was revised to reflect that it is the Department of Justice’s responsibility to

pay the costs of travel and subsistence expenses for the defendant and the defendant’s attorney to

attend a deposition. The Department approved this policy change in accordance with the 2002

amendment of Fed. R. Crim. P. 15. The significant changes are detailed in the Redline

Comparison below.

Questions regarding this transmittal may be directed to the AO Office of Defender Services, Legal

and Policy Branch Duty Day Attorney, at 202-502-3030.

1
REDLINE COMPARISON REFLECTING CHANGES

§ 320 Authorization of Investigative, Expert, and Other Services

[. . .]

§ 320.40 Fact Witnesses and Depositions

[. . .]

§ 320.40.20 Depositions

Depositions are covered by Fed. R. Crim. P., Rule 15, rather than 18 U.S.C. § 3503 (repealed).

(a) Expenses incurred in the taking of fact witness depositions (notarial fees, interpreters,

transcripts, etc.) are paid by the DOJ, regardless of which party requested the deposition.

(b) The costs of attendance of fact witnesses for either party at the deposition are paid by the

DOJ under Rule 17 (b).

(c) The costs of attendance of expert witnesses for the defense at the deposition are paid under

the CJA.

(d) Reasonable travel and subsistence eExpenses incident to attendance of counsel and the

defendant at the deposition are paid by the DOJ (1) if the government is the requesting party;

CJA if the depositions are at the instance of the defense, or (2) if the defendant is the

requesting party and is unable to bear the deposition expenses, based on resources that

would be used to determine financial eligibility for appointed counsel. However, it should be

noted that the presence of the defendant is not essential to defense depositions since the

confrontation clause only requires the defendant's presence if the depositions are intended to

be used against the defendant.

[. . .]

2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9623]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Correction to Notice of Petitions and Director's Decisions

    On April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19398), the Federal Register published 
notice of Petitions and Director's Decisions. On page 19398 there was a 
notice entitled ``Power Authority of the State of New York; Facility 
Operating License DPR-64 Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision 
Under 10 CFR 2.206.'' The title of this notice should have been 
``Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Facility Operating 
License DPR-26 Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 
2.206.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of April 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-9623 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20607-20608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10157]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-978, MM Docket No. 01-16, RM-10029]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Eugene, OR

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of KEZI, Inc., licensee of 
station KEZI-TV, substitutes DTV channel 44 for DTV channel 14 at 
Eugene, Oregon. See 66 FR 8558, February 1, 2001. DTV channel 44 can be 
allotted to Eugene in compliance with the principle community coverage 
requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (44-06-57 N. 
and 122-59-57 W.) with a power of 548, HAAT of 501.5 meters and with a 
DTV service population of 441 thousand.
    With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-16, adopted April 18, 2001, and 
released April 23, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,

[[Page 20608]]

Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television, Digital television broadcasting.


    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments 
under Oregon, is amended by removing DTV channel 14 and adding DTV 
channel 44 at Eugene.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-10157 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of UNOVA, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended April 3, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael E. Keane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Michael E. Keane       |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Michael E. Keane           |     |
| *Chief  Financial Officer* | * * |
| May 10, 2005               |     |

 

----
No. 97-20526

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20526

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES ELLIS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. THALER, Warden; WAYNE SCOTT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-485

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Ellis, Jr., Texas prisoner #661137, appeals from the

dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Ellis

contends his placement in administrative segregation violated the

Due Process Clause. He argues that Texas prison regulations

created a liberty interest against placement in administrative

segregation and that failure to follow prison regulations is

itself a due process violation. Ellis contends that prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety

by placing him in administrative segregation and by placing him 

with an HIV-positive inmate. He argues that the district court
No. 97-20526

-2-

should have required the warden to obtain his former cellmate’s

prison records to ascertain whether his cellmate was disposed to

violence, as Ellis alleges (for the first time on appeal) that he

was. Ellis contends that retaliation may be inferred from the

fact that he was placed in an unsafe situation after he filed a

grievance regarding his placement in administrative segregation

and requested the name of the person who had him placed in

administrative segregation. Ellis argues that the defendants

were personally involved in the actions underlying his complaint.

We have reviewed Ellis’s brief and the record, and we have

found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss Ellis’s

claims for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district

court. Ellis v. Thaler, No. H-96-485 (S.D. Tex. June 17, 1997).

Ellis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We

previously dismissed an appeal by Ellis as frivolous, following

the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous. Ellis v. Bozarth,

No. 98-50205 (5th Cir. Jun. 17, 1998)(unpublished). The district

court’s dismissal of the present case and our dismissal of the

appeal constitute strikes three and four against Ellis for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Ellis has more than three

strikes, he may not bring a civil action or appeal as a prisoner

proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6139 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

482 East Main Street in Malone, New York, as the ‘‘Almanzo Wilder 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

Mr. OWENS (for himself, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. TONKO, Mr. 

ISRAEL, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. MURPHY of New 

York, and Mr. HOLT) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 482 East Main Street in Malone, New York, 

as the ‘‘Almanzo Wilder Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALMANZO WILDER POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 482 East Main Street in Malone, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Almanzo Wilder Post Office Building’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6139 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Almanzo Wilder Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 26, 2022 No. 04-21-00518-CV BULVERDE VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION , Appellant
v. BULVERDE VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a/k/a The Point, Appellee From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI03243 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s reply brief is due on September 6, 2022. However, the appellant has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file its reply brief. The motion is GRANTED. The appellant’s reply brief is due on or before September 16, 2022
.

_________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60236

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIE FRANK JONES, BILLY RAY GRAY,

SYLVESTER BYERS and ANTHONY C. MARION,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi

(3:94-CR-36-D)

______________________________________________

April 10, 1996

Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After considering the briefs and argument of counsel and the

record, the Court finds no reversible error and therefore affirms

the convictions and sentences of the appellants.

The only contention of appellants deserving any discussion is

that respecting contacts with jurors. After receiving the jury

note concerning this, the district court examined each of the
2

jurors individually and ascertained that these matters would not

have an effect on their deliberations and they could continue to be

impartial. The jury was also given appropriate formal instructions

in this respect. Appellants complain of certain asserted

deficiencies in the district court’s examination of the jurors, and

that the trial court did not allow them to call the jurors to

testify at a post-verdict motion for new trial hearing. We are not

persuaded that any reversible error is shown. We note that the

trial court’s pre-verdict in camera examination of the jurors was

pursuant to and as contemplated by the express request of defense

counsel. The nature of the two contacts was neither expressly nor

impliedly threatening or promissory, and was relatively mild and

vague (a defendant was a “good” person whom the juror could

“help”); although expressly on behalf of one particular defendant,

the contacts did not suggest that that defendant, or any other

defendant, had instigated or knew of the contacts; and neither of

the two contacts was face-to-face. Moreover, the evidence against

the defendants was overwhelming.

The appellants’ convictions and sentences are

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 15.2

ARIK ESHEL, CPA & ASSOC., PC

Certified Public
Accountants and Consultants

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-65904 and No. 333-146265) and Forms F-3/A (No.
333-114504 and No. 333-130632) of ViryaNet Ltd. of our report dated October 29, 2009, relating to the financial statements which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

/s/ Arik Eshel, CPA & Assoc., PC

New York, NY, USA

October 29, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt Scott, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, *572New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on January 2, 1985, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
#               N-426, Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service

Applicants for naturalization use this form to request that the Department of Defense verify their military or naval service.

## Forms and Document Downloads

Form N-426  (PDF, 288.38 KB)

Instructions for Form N-426  (PDF, 229.69 KB)

## Form Details

03/09/23. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.

Dates are listed in mm/dd/yy format.

If you complete and print this form to mail it, make sure that the form edition date and page numbers are visible at the bottom of all pages and that all pages are from the same form edition. If any of the form’s pages are missing or are from a different form edition, we may reject your form.

If you need help downloading and printing forms, read our instructions. 

Form N-426 should be filed or uploaded with the electronic Form N-400 or, if submitting by paper, using the direct filing address for the Form N-400.

If you received a Request for Evidence asking you to submit a Form N-426, return the Form N-426 to the office that requested the certification.

You can find the filing fee for Form N-426 by visiting our Fee Schedule page.  

**Filing Tips:** Review our Tips for Filing Forms by Mail page for information on how to ensure we will accept your form.

**Don’t forget to sign your form.** We will reject any unsigned form.

Please read the instructions carefully. If relevant, please see our M-599, Naturalization Information for Military Personnel (PDF, 421.7 KB) brochure.

If you are claiming eligibility for naturalization based on your service in the U.S. armed forces and you are currently serving, you must submit a signed and certified Form N-426 with your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization. Only authorized military personnel may certify your Form N-426.  Please review your branch’s policy regarding who is authorized to certify. 

If you previously served in the U.S. armed forces, do not submit Form N-426. Instead, submit a copy of your DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; NGB Form 22, National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service; or an equivalent discharge document for all periods of service.

04/03/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ImproveNet, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ( "ImproveNet") on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended March 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Jeffrey I. Rassas, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of ImproveNet.

ImproveNet, Inc.

/s/ Jeffrey I. Rassas
---------------------------------------
Jeffrey I. Rassas
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 20, 2005