alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
 CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 302(A)
OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly 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.
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Alain MorlotAlain MorlotPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 

I, Pieter Muntendam, M.D., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BG Medicine, 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 necessaryto 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 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 cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) 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 such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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) [reserved] / paragraph omitted pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) 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 materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial 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’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:May 12, 2011 

/s/ Pieter Muntendam, M.D.            

Pieter Muntendam, M.D. 

President and ChiefExecutive Officer 

(principal executive officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Jose Peque, Also Known as Juan Jose Peque Sicajan, Appellant.

Submitted January 9, 2012;

decided January 12, 2012

Reported below, 88 AD3d 1024.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID STECKBECK; STEVEN ALBA; 

ROBERT BLEDSOE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 165, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16923 

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-00323-RFB-CWH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 6, 2017**

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD***, Circuit Judges, and ELLIS,**** District 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Kozinski, who 

recently retired. Following Judge Kozinski’s retirement, Judge Gould was drawn 

by lot to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Gould has read the 

briefs and reviewed the record.

**** The Honorable Sara Lee Ellis, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Judge.

In order to prevail, appellants must show that the union’s “conduct in 

dismissing their grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.” Stevens

v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 18 F.3d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994). Such a 

decision by the union “is arbitrary only if it lacks a rational basis.” Id. Local 165’s 

decision not to investigate appellants’ grievance was rational because the grievance 

stemmed from facts Local 165 already knew. The union had an ample basis for 

assessing appellants’ grievance and simply chose not to “brood over it.” Peters v. 

Burlington N. R.R. Co., 931 F.2d 534, 540 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on denial 

of reh’g (Apr. 23, 1991). Appellants have also not offered any evidence of bad 

faith on the part of Local 165. See Stevens, 18 F.3d at 1448.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1














CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









In
connection with the Report of Data Storage Consulting Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ross Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: August 22, 2008
                By:
                /s/ 
      Ross BernsteinRoss
      Bernstein
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osprey Ventures,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Periodic Report), I, James Yiu Yeung Lung, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
    and                                 
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|2. | the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: January 5, 2010

/s/          
James Yiu Yeung Lung

James Yiu Yeung Lung Chief
Executive Officer

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**$>tate~** 

# <!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejfeberaI<!Circuit
RONALD L. VOGLEWEDE, Appellant, 

### v. WOOK YONG LEE, EUI YEOP CHUNG, SEUNG HWAN OH, MYUNG RYUL LEE, CHANG HO SEO, SEONG JAE KIM, AND 

### SUNG HOON CHUNG, Appellees. 2012-1382 (Interference No. 105,711) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board ofPatent Appeals and Interferences. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Upon consideration of Ronald L. Voglewede's unopposed motion to voluntarily withdraw his appeal, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 12-1382 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/11/2012RONALD VOGLEWEDE v. WOOKYONG LEE
FOR THE COURT lsIJan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 Issued As A Mandate:

__ 

## O_C_T_1_1_20_12

_ 2 Case: 12-1382 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/11/2012
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION OF JOHN M. KING, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350    The undersigned officer of Springfield Company, Inc. (Springfield) hereby certify that (a) Springfields Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the quarter ended  June 30, 2005, 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 (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Springfield.   /s/  John M. King President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer July 31, 2007
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 13
- 00413
- CR JAMES EARL WILLIAMS , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012
- 623
- C2

DISSENTING OPINION
There are a couple of things in this appeal that are not subject to dispute because they do not depend on memory or credibility evaluation. As to one, the agreement, there is no dispute because it is written down. The agreement was that, as part of the
2 002 plea agreement to resolve other pending charges, the State agreed it “is going to refuse prosecution of any other case in which the state has notice, ... unfiled cases.” The other thing on which there is no disagreement is that the present murder charge wasWilliams v. State Page 2

known to the State at the time of the 2002 plea agreement. In essence, at the time of the plea agreement, it was an unfiled case of which the State had notice. The Court in this appeal has determined there is an ambiguity in the agreement.
I do not find one. There may have been a unilateral mistake about what unfiled cases were intended to be covered by the agreement. But there was no ambiguity. There may
even have been a mutual mistake about what unfiled cases were intended to be covered by the a greement. But there was no ambiguity. No one has argued a mistake. There is no justification to look outside the agreement to determine the intent of the parties. Regardless of what they intended, what was written down as the agreement of the parties i s clear. The agreement was that the State would not prosecute any unfiled cases of which it had notice. The present murder case was one about which the State had notice. I can find no legal justification to let the State out of the deal that it made. Be cause I would reverse the judgment of conviction and remand this proceeding to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the charges against Williams, I respectfully dissent.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Dissenting opinion issued and filed July 30 , 2015
**EXHIBIT 23.10****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name as a Qualified Person for the NariinSukhait Technical Report under the heading “Item 3: Description of the Business – Mongolian CoalDivision – Nariin Sukhait Project” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007, and in the 40-F.Sincerely,   */s/ Patrick P. Riley, CPG* Title: Senior Associate Geologist  Company: Norwest Corporation  Date: March 30, 2007
PROMISSORY NOTE








[Insert Date]








Speedemissions, Inc.


1029 Peachtree Parkway North, #310


Peachtree City, GA. 32069





In consideration for an investment of [Insert Alpha Dollar Amount] dollars, ($Insert Numeric Number) Speedemissions agrees to pay Calabria Advisers, LLC an annualized interest rate of Five Percent (5%) for the term of this investment.  Payment of principal and interest is due [Insert Date].





Calabria Advisers is a Georgia limited liability corporation with Richard Parlontieri, as Agent and Member.





Payment of investment, including interest expense, may be made in the form of the common stock of Speedemissions.  The price of the common stock is to be determined by the "bid" price of the stock on the date the investment is due and payable.  In the event this Promissory Note is satisfied prior to the due date, the "bid" price of the stock on that day will be used to satisfy the outstanding obligation.











Signed and accepted
Signed and accepted_______________________________
_______________________________Bahram Yusefzadeh
Richard ParlontieriDirector, Speedemissions, Inc.
Calabria Advisers, LLC
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13858]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--BizTech for Energy (``BizTech'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 17, 2001, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), BizTech for Energy (``BizTech'') 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Nexen Petroleum USA, Dallas, TX has been added as a party 
to this venture. Also, Quillion Inc., Houston, TX; and enertia-software.com, Midland, TX have been dropped as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and BizTech intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On December 22, 2000, BizTech filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13968).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-13858 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# C_2010184EN.01000401.xml

| 8.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/4

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 184/04

| Member State | United Kingdom |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned routes | Oban–Coll
  Oban–Colonsay
  Oban–Tiree
  Coll–Tiree |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1 October 2010-31 March 2014 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 2 months after the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained | Argyll and Bute Council |
| Council Offices |
| Kilmory |
| Lochgilphead |
| Argyll |
| PA31 8RT |
| Scotland |
| UNITED KINGDOM |
| Tel. +44 1546604141 |
| Fax +44 1546606443 |
| (Contact: Sandy Mactaggart, Development and Infrastructure Services) |
| E-mail: sandy.mactaggart@argyll-bute.gov.uk |

Member State

United Kingdom

Concerned routes

Oban–Coll

Oban–Colonsay

Oban–Tiree

Coll–Tiree

Period of validity of the contract

1 October 2010-31 March 2014

Deadline for submission of tenders

2 months after the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained

Argyll and Bute Council

Council Offices

Kilmory

Lochgilphead

Argyll

PA31 8RT

Scotland

UNITED KINGDOM

Tel. +44 1546604141

Fax +44 1546606443

(Contact: Sandy Mactaggart, Development and Infrastructure Services)

E-mail: sandy.mactaggart@argyll-bute.gov.uk

---
June 4 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ENZO INVESTMENTS, LP , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00509

- CV V.

CHARLES WHITE , Appellee

________________________________ CHARLES WHITE
, Cross

- Appellant

V.
ENZO INVESTMENTS, LP ; IP INVESTMENTS, LL C; AND IP REAL ESTAT E, LLC, Cross

- Appellees

________________________________ This court today issued a substitute opinion. We order this court’s former judgment of May 12, 2015, vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this court’s opinion of May 12, 2015, withdrawn. This cause, an ap peal from the judgment signed March 14, 2013 in favor of appellee /cross

- appellant Charles White, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore MODIFY the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding White “the amount of $377,567.50 for reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees through the date of trial and an additional $20,625.00 for post

verdict matters in the trial court,” and instead award White “the amount of $209,192.50 for

reas onable and necessary attorneys’ fees for work performed in the trial court.” We order the remainder of the judgment AFFIRM ED except as modified in this judgment. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee /cros s

- appellant Charles White.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID A. TROPP,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CONAIR CORPORATION, L.C. INDUSTRIES, LLC, 

MASTER LOCK COMPANY LLC, SAMSONITE 

CORPORATION, TRAVELPRO INTERNATIONAL 

INC., AND TRG ACCESSORIES, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellants,

AND

BRIGGS & RILEY TRAVELWARE LLC,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

EAGLE CREEK, A DIVISION OF VF OUTDOOR, 

INC., BROOKSTONE COMPANY, INC., AND

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants,

AND

DELSEY LUGGAGE INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

EBAGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013
2 DAVID TROPP v. CONAIR CORPORATION

MAGELLAN’S INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL 

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

TUMI, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

WORDLOCK, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

OUTPAC DESIGNS INC., HP MARKETING CORP. 

LTD., AND TITAN LUGGAGE USA, 

Defendants.

______________________ 

2012-1337

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York in No. 08-CV-4446, Judge 

Eric N. Vitaliano.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before DYK, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PROST, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

The parties jointly submit a letter, which this court 

construes as a motion to vacate the district court’s denial 

of the appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees.

Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013
 DAVID TROPP v. CONAIR CORPORATION 3

This appeal of a denial of attorneys’ fees, along with 

the underlying merits appeal, David Tropp v. Conair 

Corp., No. 2011-1583, (“Merits Appeal”), was stayed 

pending this court’s decision in Travel Sentry, Inc. v. 

David Tropp, Nos. 2011-1023, -1367. Shortly after this 

court’s decision in Travel Sentry, the court decided the 

Merits Appeal, vacating and remanding the district 

court’s judgment. Accordingly, vacatur of the district 

court’s denial of attorneys’ fees is also warranted. See 

Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp., 688 F.3d 1311, 

1313 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to vacate is granted. 

(2) All parties shall bear their own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

 

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk

s25

Case: 12-1337 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2013