alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Eric R. Zimmerman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period 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 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 we 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod 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’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 materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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: 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.        August 15, 2005 /s/Eric R. Zimmerman   Eric R. Zimmerman   President, Chief Executive Officer
Lawrence WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Sandy McCAIN, Warden.

No. 17-8680.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2014 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 Union Calendar No. 117
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2014

                          [Report No. 106-203]

  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                             nonresidents.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 1999

  Mr. Franks of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Mrs. 
   Roukema) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             June 25, 1999

   Additional sponsors: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. 
                 Maloney of Connecticut, and Mr. Shays

                             June 25, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                             nonresidents.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY COMMUTER TAX ON 
              NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--A State may not impose a tax on the income earned 
in the State by nonresidents unless the tax is of substantial equality 
of treatment for the citizens of the State and the nonresidents so 
commuting.
    (b) State.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``State'' 
includes the District of Columbia and any political subdivision of a 
State.
                                     





                                                 Union Calendar No. 117

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2014

                          [Report No. 106-203]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                             nonresidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 25, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed`
**EXHIBIT 11**

|                                                                                                                                                          | Year Ended June 30,
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
|                                                                                                                                                          | 2006               
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Basic   Average shares outstanding                                                                                                                        | 2,224,409          
|Net income                                                                                                                                                | $2,784,166         
|Basic earnings per share                                                                                                                                  | $       1.25       
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Diluted   Average shares outstanding                                                                                                                      | 2,224,409          
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
    treasury stock method using the period end market
    price, if greater than average market price | 27,852             
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Total                                                                                                                                                     | 2,252,261          
|Net income                                                                                                                                                | $2,784,166         
|Diluted earnings per share                                                                                                                                | $       1.24
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/05/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      155,049
COMMITMENTS
  36,938   22,387   22,049   74,236   78,486  133,223  122,922   21,826   32,127

CHANGES FROM 05/29/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     10,757)
     935    2,173    3,390    2,108    1,587    6,433    7,150    4,324    3,607

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    23.8     14.4     14.2     47.9     50.6     85.9     79.3     14.1     20.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      152)
      40       38       46       54       58      121      120
```

----

Updated June 8, 2012
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN AMERICA,

INC.,

Appellants

v.

THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2018-1389

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

00452.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

ANTHONY F. LO CICERO, Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein 

LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellants. Also represented by MARION P. METELSKI. 

 DIPU A. DOSHI, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by JONATHAN W.S.

ENGLAND, MICHAEL S. MARCUS. 

______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 August 8, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Order filed July 24, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 14 - 00344 - CV NO. 14 - 14 - 003 51 - CV NO. 14 - 14 - 003 52 - CV NO. 14 - 14 - 003 68 - CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF X .I.M., P.M., E.C., D.C., E. C., AND Y.C., CHILD REN

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2002 - 50811 , 2011 - 10644, 2011 - 42185, & 2011 - 01184J 

### ORDER Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without me rit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel certified to this court that he provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and the record, and advised appellant of her right to fi le a pro se brief in response.If appellant desires to file a pro se brief in response to counsel’s Anders brief,

appellant’s pro se brief shall be due on or before August 25 , 2014. PER CURIAM
Linh Thi Minh TRAN, petitioner, v. Kathy Hung PHAM, et al.

No. 18-5943.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
GARTEISER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC. 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-249

Jury Trial Demanded 

DECLARATION OF RANDALL GARTEISER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 

TO RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 18-1 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 794
GARTEISER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 2

I, Randall Garteiser, hereby declare:

1. I am an attorney at Garteiser Honea, PLLC. I am counsel of record for 

Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC, in this case. I have personal knowledge of the 

facts provided herein, and I could competently testify to them if called as a witness.

2. I make this declaration in support of Symbology’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon Section 101.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the communication 

I sent to counsel for Defendant regarding claim terms that need to be construed.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct 

to the best of my personal knowledge.

Executed on August 7, 2023, in Tyler, Texas. 

By: /s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 18-1 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 795
Elias KIFLE, et al., petitioners, v. Jemal AHMED.

No. 18-528.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Daniel H. ALEXANDER, petitioner, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC.

No. 18-375.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*797Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 24 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY L. HUNT, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KURTIS DOWNING, Youth Center Worker, Atchison, KS; YOUTH CENTER AT ATCHISON; PEGGY ROPER, Youth Center Worker, Atchison, KS, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-3153 (D.C. No. 96-3167-GTV) (District of Kansas)

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge; PORFILIO , Circuit Judge; and MURPHY , Circuit Judge.

Jerry L. Hunt, II, has filed an application with this court to be allowed to appeal without payment of fees. Although he has not complied with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), we nonetheless deny his application on the ground the appeal is legally frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).- 2 -

Mr. Hunt filed an action claiming his civil rights had been violated by defendants because while he was detained in a state juvenile facility in 1993, they made him sleep one night in “urinated sheets” as punishment for intentionally soiling the bed covers. The district court dismissed the complaint because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, finding plaintiff alleged no facts showing defendants had acted with deliberate indifference and for the purpose of inflicting unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825 (1994): Rhodes v. Chapman , 452 U.S. 337, 346-47 (1981). We agree with this analysis. The application to appeal without payment of fees is DENIED , and the appeal is DISMISSED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAYMUNDO CARRANZA

,

Appellant,

v.

T HE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 298

- CR

Appeal from the

409 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150D00299 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter ’ s third request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter ’ s Record until April 18 , 2017

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER ’ S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Natalie A. Martinez , Court Reporter for the 409 th District

Court

, for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter ’ s Record for the above styled and

numbered cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before April 18 , 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of March , 2017

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox

, JJ.
Exhibit 21.1



SOLITARIO EXPLORATION & ROYALTY CORP.
Schedule of Subsidiaries
December 31, 2009



Solitario Exploration & Royalty Corp. [Colorado]
Subsidiaries-[jurisdiction] - percentage owned

- Solitario Mexico SA de CV
- Altoro Gold Corp. [British Columbia, Canada] - 100%
     - Altoro Gold (BVI) Corp. [British Virgin Islands] - 100%
           - Minera Altoro (BVI) Ltd. [British Virgin Islands]- 100%
           - Minera Andes (BVI) Corp. [British Virgin Islands] -100%
                 - Compania Minera Andes del Sur S.A. [Bolivia] - 100%- Minera Altoro Brazil (BVI) Corp. [British Virgin Islands] - 100%
                 - Altoro Mineracao, Ltda. [Brazil] - 100% 
 Minera Solitario Peru, S.A. [Peru] - 100% 
 Minera Bongara, S.A. [Peru] - 100%
 Minera Soloco, S.A. [Peru] - 100%
 Mineracao Solitario Brazil, Ltd [Brazil]- 100%
 Pedra Branca Brazil Mineracao -100%
August 7, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NANCY QUESTED, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00516-CV V.

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee

________________________________

Our judgment of June 12, 2014 is vacated and this revised judgment is 

issued in its place.

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, the City of 

Houston, signed May 24, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Nancy Quested, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1949 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1949

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Rhinovirus drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Rhinovirus drugs.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``    9902.32.97    Trans-(2R,        Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     3S,4S,5S) -(4-                                                          31/2002          ''
                     {2-(4-                                                                                    .
                     Fluorobenzyl)-6-
                     methyl-5-[(5-
                     methylisoxazole-
                     3-
                     carbonyl)amino]-
                     4-
                     oxoheptanoylami
                     no}-5-(2-
                     oxopyrrolidin-3-
                     yl)pent-2-enoic
                     acid ethyl
                     ester (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2931.00.60)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, L TD., DAIKIN AMERICA,

INC.,

Appellants

v.

THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2018

- 1389

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

-

00452.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

A NTHONY F. L O C ICERO

, Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein

LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellants. Also represented by M ARION P. M ETELSKI

.

D IPU A. D OSHI

, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by J ONATHAN W.S.

E NGLAND

, M ICHAEL S. M ARCUS

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, P LAGER and

H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 8, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
Marc SCHENKEL, petitioner, v. XYNGULAR CORPORATION, et al.

No. 18-479.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2063

To provide for a study of marketing practices of the firearms industry.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1999

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for a study of marketing practices of the firearms

industry.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY OF MARKETING PRACTICES OF THE

4 FIREARMS INDUSTRY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Trade Commission

6 and the Attorney General shall jointly conduct a study of

7 the marketing practices of the firearms industry with re8 spect to children.
2

•HR 2063 IH

1 (b) ISSUES EXAMINED.—In conducting the study

2 under subsection (a), the Commission and the Attorney

3 General shall examine the extent to which the firearms

4 industry advertises and promotes its products to minors,

5 including in media outlets in which minors comprise a sub6 stantial percentage of the audience.

7 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date

8 of the enactment of this Act, the Commission and the At9 torney General shall submit to Congress a report on the

10 study conducted under subsection (a).

Æ