alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Clarice Motter, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MicroMed Cardiovascular, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.          Date: August 14, 2006         By:  /s/ Clarice Motter    Clarice Motter    Corporate Secretary and Authorized Signatory by the Board of Directors  
20
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Principal Return Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Zeros and Appreciation Series 1998 of Smith Barney
Principal Return Fund (the "Fund") for the year ended November
30, 1997, we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our
auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




January 15, 1998
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1397

___________________________

Vernon L. Johnson

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

SSM Healthcare System

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: November 14, 2014

 Filed: November 20, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Vernon L. Johnson appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary 1

judgment in his state-tort suit for damages arising from revocation of his hospital

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.
privileges; his suit was removed to federal court under the Health Care Quality

Improvement Act (HCQIA). Upon de novo review, we find no basis for overturning

the district court’s determination that SSM was entitled to HCQIA immunity, because

Dr. Johnson did not satisfy his burden of producing evidence that would allow a

reasonable jury to find that the peer review process failed to meet HCQIA’s

standards. See Lee v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 408 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (8th Cir.

2005). The judgment of the district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Dr. 2

Johnson’s pending motion is granted.

______________________________

We decline to address the matters Dr. Johnson raises for the first time in his

2

opening brief, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004), or in his

reply brief, see Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008).

-2-
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1139 CA 11-01347 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

LYNN M. DELBELLO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS M. DELBELLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

THOMAS M. DELBELLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (LAURA J. EMERSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered December 2, 2010 in a divorce action. The judgment, inter alia, directed defendant to pay maintenance to plaintiff in the amount of $200 per week.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the amount of maintenance awarded and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the same Memorandum as in Delbello v Delbello ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 9, 2012]).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Zachary William HICKS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5624

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Steven EASON, Petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 19-5435

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT  OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The undersigned hereby certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed by TNS, Inc. with the Securities
and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

|Dated: November 9, 2007                                                                                           |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/HENRY H. GRAHAM, JR.Henry H. Graham, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer                                               |  | 
|Dated: November 9, 2007                                                                                           |  | 
|/s/DENNIS L. RANDOLPH, JR.Dennis L. Randolph, Jr.
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Michael D. MATHEW, Petitioner, v. OHIO

No. 19-5030

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Muskingum County denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 2000** 

CANDACE E. ALSTON, an individual on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated ,
Plaintiff

– Appellant,

and
NEIL F. LETREN, an individual on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff ,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv
- 03957

- TDC )

Submitted : March 14 , 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Candace E. Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Campbell, Joy Catherine Einstein, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Candace E. Alston appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing her claims against Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Alston v. Experia n Info. Sols ., Inc

. , No. 8:14

- cv
- 03957

-
TDC (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRM ED
Harlow HUTCHINSON, Petitioner v. LOUISIANA

No. 19-5693

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Douglas P. Condie, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this
amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A, for the quarter ended September 30, 2004,
of STAT Software, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a) 
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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) 
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) 
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) 
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:  May 2, 2005





/s/ Douglas P. Condie

President
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 27, 200 5 TYR ONE D. CO NLE Y v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County No. 4497 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2005-00049-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Novem ber 2, 2005

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J

. , co n cu rr i n g. I concur in the result re ache d in the majority o p i n ion. Howeve r, I do so on the merits, as opposed to the petitioner’ s failure to follow proce dural re quirements for habea s corpus pe titions

. The majority

opinion cites Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 15, 19-20 (Tenn. 2004) , in stating that the proc edura l require ments are mandatory and mus t be scrupulously honored. H oweve r, our supreme c ourt also noted in H ickman that the trial court “may instead choose to affor d the petitioner a n o pp ortun ity

to c omp ly

wi th the pr oc e du ra l re qu ir e me nts , or the ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt ma y c ho os e to adjudicate the petition on its merits.” I d. at 21. I n the pre sent ca se, althoug h one of the arg uments made by the state de alt with the petition’s proce dural defic iencies, I view the state’s motion and the tria l court’s dismissal order to f ocus on the merits of the petition. That is, the specific issue addre ssed in them dealt with whether the petition su pp orte d a fi nd ing that th e pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n w a s v oidor that hi s se nte nc e ha d e xpir e d. I n th is reg ard, when the trial court c hose to resolve the habe as cor pus petition on the merits, without conce rn for proce dural deficienc ies or for the opportuni ty to corr ect such deficie ncies, we should not then re ly on the def

iciencie s to defeat an appe al. Th e pe tit ion e r’ s c e ntr a l cl aim is that thetria l c ou rt

didno t ha ve jurisd ic tio n to a me ndhis second de g ree murder judg ment by removing the thirty

perc ent re lease elig ibilit y and imposing serviceof one hundr ed per cent of the sentenc e. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-501( i) a sente nce f or second de g ree m u rd er r equire s service of the sente nce w ithout parole, allowing only for se ntence c re dit s f or fi ft e e n p e rc e nt o f the se nte nc e . T he tria l c ou rt ’s imp os iti on of a th ir ty per c e nt r e le a se elig ibilit y date wa s in direct contr avention of la w, subject to c orre ction at any time. SeeMoody v.-2-

State, 160 S.W .3d 512, 515-16 (Te nn. 2005) (c iting State v. B urkhart, 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 19 78 )) . I c on c lud e that th e pe tit ionha s n o me ri t.

____________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE
# C_2018012EN.01001201.xml

| 13.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8522 — Avantor/VWR)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 12/02)

On 17 November 2017, 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:

1

| — | 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 32017M8522. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8522. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# Official Journal C 198/5 Au

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 198 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 475 August 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 198

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 475 August 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 198/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 198/1

Euro exchange rates

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 5.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 August 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1983 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4352 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,65960 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1938 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5394 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,33 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4145 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,57940 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,769 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,14 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6527 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4245 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4350 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 954 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 240,0100 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,120 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 782 400 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7079 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5844 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3465 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8624 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0667 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 399,08 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5483 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1983

JPY

Japanese yen

133,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4352

GBP

Pound sterling

0,65960

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1938

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5394

ISK

Iceland króna

86,33

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4145

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,57940

CZK

Czech koruna

31,769

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,14

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6527

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4245

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4350

ROL

Romanian leu

40 954

SIT

Slovenian tolar

240,0100

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,120

TRL

Turkish lira

1 782 400

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7079

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5844

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3465

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8624

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0667

KRW

South Korean won

1 399,08

ZAR

South African rand

7,5483

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, LP, Petitioner, v. MALIBU TEXTILES, INC.

No. 19-297

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2017, by and amongMorgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2017-HR2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during theperiod from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the MasterServicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|