alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Hugh E. Sawyer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Allied Holdings, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     September 8, 2006   /s/Hugh E. Sawyer     *Date*   *Hugh E. Sawyer*    *Chief Executive Officer and President*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4123** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. MANUEL BUENFIL CATALAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00075

- RLV

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : September 9, 2013 Decided: September 17, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Manuel Buenfil Catalan pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having previously been removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violati on of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Catalan to forty

- six months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. Catalan argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise seve ral arguments in mitigation at Catalan’s sentencing. To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). With respect to the first prong, “the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In addition, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689. Moreover, we may address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. United States v. Baldovinos , 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006 ). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Catalan has failed to demonstrate that ineffective assistance of counsel3 conclusively appears on the record. We therefore decline to address this argument on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
A FFIRMED
Alex RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 18-8024.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
Linda SHAO, petitioner, v. TSAN-KUEN WANG.

No. 18-569.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Eric WENZEL, et al., petitioners, v. Carl STORM.

No. 18-1176.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Larry Pollock, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cole National Group,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: September 7, 2004 /s/ Larry Pollock
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40350

Summary Calendar

SHIRLEY A CHARLES,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RICK THALER,DIRECTOR,TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINALJUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CV-2041

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shirley Ann Charles, Texas prisoner # 692618, was convicted in 1994 of

possession of a controlled substance, for which she was sentenced to 40 years in

prison. She filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in 1998, which the district court

dismissed as time barred. She now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to

appeal the denial of two motions to amend her application. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 14, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-40350 Document: 00511633052 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2011
No. 11-40350

We dismissed a previous appeal by Charles of the denial of the motions to

amend for lack of jurisdiction because the ruling was made by a magistrate

judge, and there was no consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. Charles

v. Thaler, No. 10-41009, slip op. at 1-2 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2010) (citing Colburn

v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989)). Although the district

court has since denied a COA, the district court has not entered a final order

addressing the motions to amend. We continue to lack jurisdiction over the

magistrate judge’s ruling. See Colburn, 883 F.2d at 379. Further, we generally

have no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal absent a final order, see Goodman

v. Harris Cnty., 443 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2006), nor may we consider a COA

motion absent a final order, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), (c).

In light of the foregoing, Charles’s request for a COA is DENIED and this

appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

2

Case: 11-40350 Document: 00511633052 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2011
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/12/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       61,690
COMMITMENTS
  20,152    1,057    4,510   24,738   41,016   49,400   46,583   12,290   15,107

CHANGES FROM 04/05/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        399)
      66       38    1,048       95      461    1,209    1,547     -810   -1,148

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    32.7      1.7      7.3     40.1     66.5     80.1     75.5     19.9     24.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       78)
      32        4       17       29       25       67       45
```

----

Updated April 15, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26354-26355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09667]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 87 FR 24162.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, April 28, 
2022 at 10:00 a.m.
    Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor) 
and virtual.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following matter was also considered:
    Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the UtePAC (A19-07).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer. 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

[[Page 26355]]

    Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-09667 Filed 5-2-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Jodi ANDERSON, petitioner, v. NORTH DAKOTA, et al.

No. 18-5034.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                          130,284
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,310,741
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4,888,924
<PP&E>                          2,364,743
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  11,559,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           9,182,643
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        34,245
<OTHER-SE>                      2,319,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    11,559,928
<SALES>                         7,556,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,556,608
<CGS>                           9,008,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   9,591,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                5,540,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              76,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (7,652,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (1,200,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (6,452,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (6,463,567)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (2.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (2.07)



</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 1, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30065

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARCADIO VILLALOVOS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CR-30008-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arcadio Villalovos appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess more

than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of more

than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. He argues that the

evidence was not sufficient to prove that he knew cocaine was secreted in a

hidden compartment of the vehicle that he was driving when he was stopped by

a Louisiana patrol officer for alleged traffic violations. 
No. 07-30065

2

The argument fails. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution, there was ample circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge.

See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). Villalovos was

the driver of a vehicle containing over 30 kilograms of cocaine, valued at

approximately $600,000, which had been placed inside a hidden compartment

in the rear cargo area. On the basis of Villalovos’s nervous behavior during his

interaction with law enforcement, the implausible and inconsistent statements

Villalovos made during questioning, the substantial modifications made to the

vehicle, and the large amount of cocaine involved,there was more than sufficient

evidence to support an inference by the jury that Villalovos knew that the

vehicle contained cocaine. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544

(5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Villalovos additionally argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress the evidence recovered during the search of the vehicle. He

argues that his detention was impermissibly extended and that he did not

voluntarily consent to the search.

Our review of the record shows that the district court did not err in

determining that the initial stop of Villalovos’s vehicle was permissibly extended

based on reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. See United States v.

Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506-07 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The district court also

did not err in determining that Villalovos voluntarily consented to the search of

his vehicle. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 435-37 (5th Cir. 2002);

United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437-39 (5th Cir. 1993). Villalovos has

not shown that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/07/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       56,645
COMMITMENTS
  22,632      849    2,889   14,610   39,132   40,131   42,870   16,514   13,775

CHANGES FROM 05/31/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,944)
    -694     -126      -30   -2,130   -2,057   -2,854   -2,213      910      269

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    40.0      1.5      5.1     25.8     69.1     70.8     75.7     29.2     24.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       79)
      35        5       11       26       24       67       38
```

----

Updated June 10, 2011
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/02/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      455,602
COMMITMENTS
  56,264   17,775   90,628  282,173  327,062  429,065  435,465   26,537   20,137

CHANGES FROM 07/26/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,816)
 -11,663   -1,369    3,154   11,485    2,342    2,976    4,127    3,840    2,689

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    12.3      3.9     19.9     61.9     71.8     94.2     95.6      5.8      4.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      131)
      35       19       37       68       66      119      110
```

----

Updated August 5, 2011
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1263

To require the Federal Government to disclose to Federal employees on

each paycheck the Government’s share of taxes for old-age, survivors,

and disability insurance and for hospital insurance of the employee,

and the Government’s total payroll allocation for the employee.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1999

Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CUNNNGHAM, Mr. COBURN,

Mr. KOLBE, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. CAMP, Mr. BARR

of Georgia, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. SCHAFFER, and Mr. SANFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To require the Federal Government to disclose to Federal

employees on each paycheck the Government’s share of

taxes for old-age, survivors, and disability insurance and

for hospital insurance of the employee, and the Government’s total payroll allocation for the employee.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employee

5 Right to Know Payroll Act’’.
2

•HR 1263 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S SHARE

2 OF FICA AND MEDICARE TAX AND PAYROLL

3 ALLOCATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each department, agency, or in5 strumentality of the United States that provides a pay6 check to an employee shall include on each such paycheck

7 information on—

8 (1) the total amount of tax imposed with re9 spect to the employee, during the period covered by

10 the paycheck, on the department, agency, or instru11 mentality under subsections (a) and (b) of section

12 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

13 (2) the estimated payroll allocation of the de14 partment, agency, or instrumentality with respect to

15 the employee for the period, which is the sum of—

16 (A) the amounts referred to in paragraph

17 (1); and

18 (B) the amount referred to in section

19 6051(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

20 with respect to the employee for the period.

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall apply

22 with respect remuneration paid after December 31, 2000.

Æ