alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Clarence H. Thiesen, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GameTechInternational, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; and
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andhave:
      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
      c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
      a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and
      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 15, 2004     /S/ Clarence H. Thiesen  Clarence H. Thiesen Chief Executive Officer
#### Commonwealth *v.*Collins, Appellant.

*Practice Q. S.*— Jurors—Women *jurors*— Custom *of excusing.*

A judge of the Quarter Sessions has no< authority of his own volition to excuse women jurors from serving in a case merely because the case involves a crime against sexual morality.

A defendant is not entitled to select his own jury, although he has a right to challenge proposed jurors as the statute provides.

Assignments of error which do not comply with the rules of court will be dismissed.

Argued October 15, 1925.

Appeal No. 22, April T.. 1926, by defendant from sentence of Q. S. Erie County, May Sessions, 1925, No. 62, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Harriet Collins alias Flay *395Collins.

November 13, 1925:

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and G-awthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Indictment for maintaining a bawdy house.

Before Bossiter,, P. 'J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict of guilty on which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.

*iErrors assigned,*among others, were in excusing certain women jurors and refusing defendant’s motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.

*Miles B. Kitts,*and with him *Franklin B. Hosbach,*for appellant.

*O. J. Graham,*Assistant District Attorney, and with him *M. Levant Davis,*District Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The assignments of error are dismissed because none of them conforms to our rules; in fact both the record and brief seem to have been prepared in disregard of our rules adopted some years ago. We have, however, examined the record and find no cause to reverse the judgment.

One matter does require notice in order that a practise, said, at the oral argument, to exist in the court below, may be discontinued. After twelve jurors had been passed and accepted by both sides, and had taken seats in the box, the trial judge, of his own volition, before the jurors were sworn in the case, dismissed two of them — unmarried women — from serving on the jury. His purpose may have been laudable enough, but as there is no authority for it, the practise should be discontinued. The limits of the discretion of the trial judge exercisable during the selection of a jury are considered in Com. v. Marion, 232 Pa. 413, 418, and in Com. v. Brown, 23 Pa. Superior Court 470.

*396In this case, appellant suffered no harm. When the judge excused the two women, appellant was accorded the statutory number of peremptory challenges, and she was tried by twelve jurors. A defendant is not entitled to select his jurors, though he is entitled to challenge proposed jurors as the statute provides. We refer to the matter only that the practise may be discontinued.

The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the appellant appear in the court below at such time as she may be there called and that she be by that court committed until she has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time this appeal was made a supersedeas.
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                             Statement of Cash Flow
              For the Years Ended September 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994
                 Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalent


                                                 Year Ended September 30,
                                          1996             1995            1994
Cash Flow from Operating Activities:
   Interest Received                 $ 171,544       $  176,566      $  186,951
   Miscellaneous Income Received           501               11             -0-
   Interest Paid                      (101,493)        (105,522)       (109,415)
   Legal, Audit and Management
     Fees Paid                         (46,155)         (41,329)        (41,316)
   Insurance Paid                          -0-              -0-            (216)
   Repairs and Maintenance Paid           (824)             (19)           (500)
   Cash Paid to Suppliers for
      Operating Expenses                (8,176)         (16,045)        (23,090)

      Net Cash Provided by
        Operating Activities         $  15,397       $   13,662      $  (12,414)
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
   Principal Collected on Sale of
     Agency Contracts                $     -0-       $  239,020      $   24,236
   Principal Collected on Sale of
     Tanglefoot Apartments Contract      9,907           12,254           7,428
   Payments on Real Estate Mortgages   (42,507)         (38,478)        (44,585)
   Payment of Commissions Payable          -0-          (81,000)            -0-
   Buyers Escrow Collected (Paid)      (20,603)             920             -0-
   Apartment Building Escrow
     Received (Paid)                   (13,013)          (9,450)         17,051
   Purchase of Real Estate Contracts       -0-         (128,496)            -0-
   Principal Collected on Real Estate
      Contracts                            791               29             -0-
   Purchase Tax Certificates               (72)          (2,883)            -0-
      Net Cash Provided (Used) by
         Investing Activities        $ (65,497)      $   (8,084)     $    4,130

Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
   Proceeds (Payments) from Loans    $  27,000       $   (2,000)     $    2,000

      Net Cash Provided (Used) by
         Financing Activities        $  27,000       $   (2,000)     $    2,000

   Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and
      Cash Equivalents                 (23,100)      $    3,578      $   18,544
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning
   of Year                              29,579           26,001           7,457

Cash and Cash Equivalents at
   End of Year                       $   6,479       $   29,579      $   26,001



Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
#### Sydney M. Silva et al., Appellants, v Paul Celella et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover a down payment on a canceled contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated January 11, 1987, which, upon denying their cross motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, *inter alia,*dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On April 22, 1987, the defendants Paul and Mary Celella entered into a contract to sell certain real estate located in Suffern to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs agreed to pay $285,000 for the property, of which $15,000 was placed in escrow as a down payment at the time the contract was signed. The contract contained a mortgage contingency clause which provided that the obligations of the plaintiffs would be subject to their obtaining a first mortgage in the amount of $175,000 within 45 days of the execution of the agreement. This clause gave either party the option to cancel the contract if the plaintiffs were unable to procure a mortgage commitment after a "prompt, diligent and good faith application”, in which event the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the down payment.

By letter dated June 8, 1987, the plaintiffs informed the *848defendants that they were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment and requested the return of their down payment. The defendants refused to refund the down payment without proof that the plaintiffs had in fact applied in good faith for such a commitment. On July 9, 1987, the plaintiffs forwarded to the defendants a letter dated July 3, 1987, from Midlantic Home Mortgage Corporation, which established that the plaintiffs had applied for a mortgage in the amount of $185,000, $10,000 greater than the amount stated in the contract, and that no commitment had been issued as of that date.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced this action against the defendant sellers and their attorneys seeking the return of their down payment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right to cancel the contract since they had applied for a mortgage in an amount which differed from the amount prescribed in the contract. We agree.

The plaintiffs do not dispute that the mortgage for which they applied was $10,000 greater than that required under the express terms of mortgage contingency clause. We conclude that by applying for a mortgage in an amount greater than that required in the contract, the plaintiffs breached the contract, as a matter of law, and they are therefore not entitled to recover the down payment *(see, Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo,*68 NY2d 373; *Lawrence v Miller,*86 NY 131; *Hendel v Scheuer,*150 AD2d 431; *Levine v Trattner,*130 AD2d 462). Hooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF CNA SURETY CORPORATION
AND CCC SURETY OPERATIONS EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES
AND SCHEDULES THERETO INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FROM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           444,541
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      34,038
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 541,025
<CASH>                                          13,730
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              73,854
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          93,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 910,269
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                169,245
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            209,105
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                101,556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              441
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     361,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   910,269
<PREMIUMS>                                     224,782
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             21,896
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 191
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      38,943
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     98,044
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            37,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,978
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,558
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frankie Medina, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered November 25, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 12 to 25 years’ imprisonment on the manslaughter in the first degree conviction to run consecutively to two consecutive indeterminate terms of *IV2*to 15 years’ imprisonment on the manslaughter in the second degree and assault convictions to run concurrently to two concurrent indeterminate terms of *IV2*to 15 years’ imprisonment on the weapons possession convictions.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which provided that the term of imprisonment imposed on the manslaughter in the first degree conviction is to run consecutively to the indeterminate term of *IV2*to 15 years’ imprisonment imposed for assault in the first degree, and substituting therefor a provision that those terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in finding on the facts before it that a juror had become unavailable because of her illness and the uncertainty as to when she was likely to return *(see,*CPL 270.35; *cf, People v Washington,*72 NY2d 69, 72; *People v Page,*72 NY2d 69; *People v Lawrence,*143 AD2d 1045; *People v McDonald,*143 AD2d 1050). Equally unavailing is the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to charge manslaughter in the second degree (reckless manslaughter) with respect to the death of Jorge A. Matías and criminally negligent homicide with respect to the death of Bertha Baines. While these offenses are lesser included offenses of the counts charged in the indictment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supports such instructions *(People v Green,*56 NY2d 427, *rearg denied*57 NY2d 775; *People v Drake,*129 AD2d 963; *People v Green,*134 AD2d 516, 517).

We agree that the court erred in imposing a consecutive *603sentence with respect to the conviction for manslaughter in the first degree and the conviction for assault in the first degree (felony assault). Inasmuch as the manslaughter in the first degree count provided an essential element of the felony assault, consecutive sentences were illegal *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; *People v Jones,*69 AD2d 824).

The defendant’s contention that the commitment papers do not accurately reflect the sentence of the court is not properly before us. The defendant’s remedy is to bring an appropriate application in the Supreme Court. Mollen, P. J., Spatt, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10969]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-01-056]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Long Island, New York Inland 
Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, NY.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge regulations which govern the 
operation of the Atlantic Beach Bridge, at mile 0.4, across the 
Reynolds Channel in New York. This deviation from the regulations 
allows the bridge owner to need not open the bridge for the passage of 
vessel traffic from 8 a.m., on May 15, 2001 through 8 a.m., on May 17, 
2001. This action is necessary to facilitate necessary maintenance at 
the bridge. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening 
may do so at all times.

DATES: This deviation is effective from May 15, 2001 through May 17, 
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Schmied, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Atlantic Beach Bridge, mile 0.4, across the Reynolds Channel 
has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water, and 30 feet at 
mean low water in the closed position. The existing operating 
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(e).
    The bridge owner, the Nassau County Bridge Authority, requested a 
temporary deviation from the operating regulations to facilitate 
replacement of the power operating controls at the bridge.
    This deviation to the operating regulations will allow the owner of 
the Atlantic Beach Bridge to need not open the bridge for the passage 
of vessel traffic from 8 a.m., on May 15, 2001 through 8 a.m., on May 
17, 2001. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may 
do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as 
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is 
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
G.N. Naccara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 01-10969 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2




                                     CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Moyco Technologies, Inc. of our report dated August 28, 1996, included in the
1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Moyco Technologies, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Moyco Technologies,
Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                           /s/ Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P.

Philadelphia, PA
September 29, 1997


                                       51
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 19-11

IN RE: COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS AND PRACTICE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that William S. Mailander, Esq., is reappointed to the Committee on

Admission and Practice for a term expiring on December 5, 2013, under Rules 2(a)(2) and (3) of 

the Court's Rules of Admission and Practice. 

DATED: October 21, 2011 FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
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 Form 10-K/A of Southern Union Company (the “Company”) for
      the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George L. Lindemann, Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of 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 (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      except as otherwise noted under Item 9A therein, and (ii) the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.













/s/
      GEORGE L.
      LINDEMANN


George
      L.
      Lindemann


Chairman
      of the Board and


Chief
      Executive Officer


November
      10, 2008









This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
      Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.