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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John J. McDonnell, Jr., certify that:

 

1.            I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TNS, Inc.;

 

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 statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading 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-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

 

a.            Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial 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 effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.            Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a.            All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonable likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b.            Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

DATE: November 14, 2005

 
| /s/ John J. McDonnell, Jr.      |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| John J. McDonnell, Jr.          |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Eric DRAKE, aka E.V. Drake, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 18-8966.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Kendrick Antonio SIMPSON, Petitioner v. Mike CARPENTER, Interim Warden

No. 19-5298

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

*391Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
  
 INDEPENDENT BANKS OF VIRGINIA, INC. 
  
 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 
  
 A. The name of the corporation is: Independent Banks of Virginia, Inc. 
  
 B. This amendment, adopted pursuant to Section 13.1-707 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, is to amend Article 1 of
the Articles of Incorporation to read as follows: 
  
 “ARTICLE
1 
  
 The name of the corporation is: HERITAGE
BANKSHARES, INC.” 
  
 C. The Board of Directors, on March 26,
1992, found the amendment to be in the best interest of the Corporation and recommended its adoption. The stockholders adopted the amendment on June 16, 1992, at the annual meeting of stockholders. 
  
 D. All 769,630 of the issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation’s
voting common stock were entitled to vote. 
  
 E. 474,860 of the
eligible shares were voted in favor of the amendment to Article 1 to change the name of the Corporation to Heritage Bankshares, Inc., which vote was sufficient for approval of the amendment. 
  
 F. On May 18, 1992, written notice accompanied by a copy of the proposed
amendment was mailed, postage prepaid, to each and every one of the stockholders at his address as it appears on the Corporation’s stock transfer books. All notices were deposited in the U. S. Mail on May 18, 1992. 
  
 G. The amendment does not affect a restatement of the Articles of
Incorporation. Signed in the City of Norfolk, Virginia, this 10th day of August, 1992. 
  

			
	 INDEPENDENT BANKS OF VIRGINIA, INC.
  

		
	By:	 	/s/    Robert C. Stackhouse        
	 	 	

	 	 	 Robert C. Stackhouse, Secretary



  

 1
Independent Auditors' Consent




To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Sector Series Inc.:
We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading
"Auditors" in the Statement of Additional Information for the
Smith Barney Global Biotechnology Fund, Smith Barney Global Media
& Telecommunications Fund and the Smith Barney Global Technology
Fund of Smith Barney Sector Series Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
New York, New York
August 14, 2000
Page
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1107 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1107

To provide for the establishment of a grant program to assist State and 
           local governments to install solar energy systems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2013

 Mr. McNerney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the establishment of a grant program to assist State and 
           local governments to install solar energy systems.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Solar Energy Deployment Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Qualifying solar equipment.--The term ``qualifying 
        solar equipment'' means property described in clause (i) or 
        (ii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Energy.
            (3) State and local governments.--The term ``State and 
        local governments'' includes municipalities, counties, transit 
        agencies, school districts, water districts, Indian tribes, and 
        territories. Such term does not include an entity eligible for 
        a credit allowed under section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1986 with respect to qualifying solar equipment.

SEC. 3. SOLAR ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
award grants, on a competitive basis, to State and local governments 
for the design, purchase, and installation of qualifying solar 
equipment on rooftops or parking structures owned by the State or local 
government.
    (b) Competitive Criteria.--In determining which State and local 
governments to award grants to under this section, the Secretary shall 
consider--
            (1) the speed with which solar energy systems can be 
        deployed;
            (2) the total amount of solar energy to be deployed;
            (3) the financial need of the State or local government;
            (4) the use of best practices to ensure maximum efficiency 
        of deployed systems;
            (5) the use of materials and components that are 
        manufactured in the United States; and
            (6) other criteria the Secretary considers relevant.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
carrying out this Act $150,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 
through 2018.
                                 <all>
```
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/27/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       39,840
COMMITMENTS
   2,770    5,175    2,606   34,385   31,902   39,761   39,683       79      157

CHANGES FROM 08/20/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        642)
     406     -247     -136      377      999      647      616       -5       26

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.0     13.0      6.5     86.3     80.1     99.8     99.6      0.2      0.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       38)
       9        6        7       16       18       27       29`

---

Updated August 30, 2013
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 19, 2014

h0916 

# Order

Clerk September 19, 2014

148861

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148861

COA: 318589

Lapeer CC: 12

- 011204

- FH

JOHN ADAM DYER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and

, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court to permit

defendant to withdraw his plea. MCR 6.310(A) provides a defendant the unqualified

right to withdraw a plea that has not been acce pted on the record. At no time prior to

sentencing did the trial court accept defendant’s plea on the record. Further, we

REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court for correction of the judgment of

sentence. In particular, if defendant chooses not to withdraw his plea of guilty, it appears

that there was a $350 overpayment to defendant’s trial counsel based on this Court’s

review of the November 30, 2012 and March 8, 2013 trial court orders authorizing

payment of attorney’s fees. However, if defendan t withdraws his plea, imposition of

attorney fees is not appropriate at this time. A court may not impose upon defendant the

expenses of providing his legal assistance until defendant is found guilty, enters a plea of

guilty, or enters a plea of nolo cont endere. MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii).
Endre GLENN, Petitioner v. Brennan H. MOSS, et al.

No. 19-315

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

*511Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
IN RE Steven Talbert WILLIAMS, Petitioner

No. 19-6227

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Charles E. JUSTISE, Sr., Petitioner, v. INDIANA.

No. 19-8168.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1743

___________________________

Jack Jordan

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

U.S. Department of Labor

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph

 ____________

 Submitted: February 12, 2020

Filed: February 21, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jack Jordan appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his pro se Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action. After a careful

1The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing some claims as

duplicative of another pending litigation, see United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Co., 920 F.2d 487, 489 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990) (district court’s decision

to dismiss an action in deference to a pending action in another court is reviewed for

abuse of discretion); and in granting summary judgment as to the remaining claims,

see Madel v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 784 F.3d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 2015) (grant

of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; summary judgment is appropriate where

an agency proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
**Exhibit 32(a)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TRW Automotive HoldingsCorp. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John C. Plant, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date:  August 2, 2006 /s/ JOHN C. PLANT   John C. Plant   *Chief Executive Officer and President*
John Henry YABLONSKY, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 19-7318.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
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

 

The undersigned, Clive Barwin, President, CEO and Secretary of Melt Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Melt Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (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 Melt Inc.

 

Dated:  November 14, 2006

 

 

/s/ Clive Barwin                                                            

Clive Barwin

President, CEO and Secretary

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document 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 Melt Inc. and will be retained by Melt Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Tyrone MURRAY, Petitioner v. Wanda COLLINS, et al.

No. 19-5467

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 E0 02 5 . I N THE I NTEREST OF B.M.R., A CHI LD (MOTHER)

Pu rs uan t to Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru le 40 (b ), th e m o t h er o f B. M

. R. h as fi l ed an

em e r g e n c y m o t i o n req u es t i n g a s eco n d t h i rt y (3 0) d ay ex t en s i o n o f ti m e t o fi l e an

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i n th i s m at t er. Th e m ot h e r ’s m o t i o n i s h ereb y DENIED. See OCGA § 5 -3 -3 9 (a) (5 ), (c).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## January 05, 2021

01/05/2021
Carl PROSTELL, Petitioner, v. David ZOOK, Warden.

No. 19-5340

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
* 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 26, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41094

Summary Calendar

CHON PATRICK DIMAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:02-CV-206

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Chon Patrick Dimas, Texas prisoner # 851077, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

habeas relief. Dimas claims that his federal rights were violated

1) because the state trial court admitted evidence of his

commission of an extraneous burglary and 2) because the evidence at

trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that he was

guilty of murder.
No. 05-41094

-2-

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that Dimas failed to meet his burden of

establishing that the state court’s adjudication of his claims

resulted in a decision that was contrary to federal law, or was

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000); Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Story v. Collins, 920 F.2d

1247, 1254 (5th Cir. 1991); Aguilar v. Dretke, 428 F.3d 526, 534

(5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 107 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to contributions and expenditures with respect to Federal elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Mr. YARMUTH (for himself, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. SARBANES, and Mr. 

COHEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to contributions and expenditures with 

respect to Federal elections. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 107 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Financial expenditures, or in-kind 

3 equivalents, with respect to a candidate for Federal office, 

4 without regard to whether or not a communication ex5 pressly advocates the election or defeat of a specified can6 didate in the election, shall not constitute protected 

7 speech, as guaranteed by this Constitution or any amend8 ment to this Constitution. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress shall have the power to enact 

10 a mandatory public financing system to provide funds to 

11 qualified candidates in elections for Federal office, which 

12 shall be the sole source of funds raised or spent with re13 spect to Federal elections. 

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to enforce 

15 the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2018459EN.01000201.xml

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9143 — CapMan/NH-Amundi/Green Investment Group/Cloud Snurran)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/03)

On 10 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9143. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9143. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---