alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.1)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a/15d OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.
(registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;(b)
    
    (omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238);(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant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 a
significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
  /s/ Tom RisleyTom RisleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. Rashawn D. YARRELL.

No. 448P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 30, 2005.

Daniel Shatz, for Rashawn D. Yarrell.

Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of August 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of August 2005."
STATE v. WADE

No. COA05-1276

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Greene (02CRS50814).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2012160EN.01001801.xml

| 21.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 160/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 160/18

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 527/2012

of 20 June 2012

withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4321 were suspended as from 19 January 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of 18 January 2012 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4321 were suspended as from 19 January 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of 18 January 2012 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.

| (2) | Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4321 as from 19 January 2012 is withdrawn.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 June 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 40.

3

---
# L_2012156EN.01003801.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 156/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 156/38

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 510/2012

of 15 June 2012

amending Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 as regards the application fee payable to the Community Plant Variety Office

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1), and in particular Article 113 thereof,

After consulting the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office (2), sets out the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office (‘the Office’), and the levels of those fees. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office (2), sets out the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office (‘the Office’), and the levels of those fees.

| (2) | The reserve of the Office has exceeded the level necessary to maintain a balanced budget and to safeguard the continuity of its operations. For this reason the application fee should be reduced. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The reserve of the Office has exceeded the level necessary to maintain a balanced budget and to safeguard the continuity of its operations. For this reason the application fee should be reduced.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Community Plant Variety Rights, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Community Plant Variety Rights,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The applicant for a Community plant variety right (the applicant) shall pay an application fee of EUR 650 for the processing of the application as referred to in Article 113(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2013.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2012.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 121, 1.6.1995, p. 31.

2

---
STATE v. WOODBURY

No. COA04-73

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Guilford (02CRS92083).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2013022EN.01002101.xml

| 25.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 22/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 22/21

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 22 January 2013

appointing a Swedish member of the Committee of the Regions

(2013/59/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following end of the term of office of Mr Uno ALDEGREN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following end of the term of office of Mr Uno ALDEGREN,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Ms Helene FRITZON, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Kristianstads kommun. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Helene FRITZON, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Kristianstads kommun.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 22 January 2013.

For the Council

The President

M. NOONAN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31098

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EFRAIN GRIMALDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CR-95-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Efrain Grimaldo of conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He appeals his conviction, arguing 

that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his 

choosing by denying George O. Jacobs’s motion to enroll as co-counsel. 

Grimaldo argues that the Government failed to show a serious potential for 

conflict based on Jacobs’s prior representation of two cooperating witnesses, 

 

* 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 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31098 Document: 00513220346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
No. 14-31098

2

Sabino Duarte and David Garza. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 

159, 164 (1988).

Grimaldo limits his argument to Jacobs’s statements during the hearing

held pursuant to United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1975), 

abrogated on other grounds by Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 & 

n.2 (1984); however, in later district court pleadings, those statements were 

shown to be inaccurate, and this court may affirm on any basis in the record, 

see United States v. Grosz, 76 F.3d 1318, 1324 n.6 (5th Cir. 1996). The entire 

record shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the 

motion to enroll. See United States v. Sanchez Guerrero, 546 F.3d 328, 332-33 

(5th Cir. 2008). 

Grimaldo and Duarte were codefendants in the instant case; Duarte 

pleaded guilty and testified against Grimaldo at trial. Jacobs previously 

represented Duarte throughout a state drug proceeding, including at trial, and 

he was convicted. The instant case and Duarte’s prior state case were related. 

Thus, Grimaldo has not shown that the district court erred by determining that 

the Government had established a serious potential for conflict in connection 

with Jacobs’s proposed representation of Grimaldo. See Wheat, 486 U.S. at 

164. 

Because we find that the district court’s denial of the motion to enroll 

was proper vis-à-vis Jacobs’s prior representation of Duarte, we need not 

address Grimaldo’s arguments regarding Garza or the untimeliness of the 

motion. See Grosz, 76 F.3d at 1324 n.6. Finally, Grimaldo’s argument that the 

district court applied the incorrect legal standard is belied by the record; as 

explained, the district court properly determined that there was a serious 

potential for conflict based on Jacobs’s prior attorney-client relationship with 

Duarte. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 14-31098 Document: 00513220346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
EXHIBIT 32.4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David L. Sokol,  Chief  Executive  Officer of MidAmerican  Funding,  LLC (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
         period  ended June 30,  2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  August 6, 2003




                               /s/ David L. Sokol
                               ------------------
                                 David L. Sokol
                             Chief Executive Officer
Lori PEREZ, Employee v. AMERICAN AIRLINES/AMR CORPORATION, Employer, AIG Vendor Services, Carrier (Administered by Specialty Risk Services).

No. 661PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2006.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 174 N.C.App. 128, 620 *888S.E.2d 288 (2005), affirming an opinion and award filed on 31 August 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 2006.

Scudder & Hedrick, by John A. Hedrick and Samuel A. Scudder, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.

Brooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Joy H. Brewer and Kimberley A. D'Arruda, Cary, for defendants-appellants.

Young Moore and Henderson P.A., by Joe E. Austin, Jr. and Jennifer T. Gottsegen, Raleigh, for the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.

Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Bruce A. Hamilton and Julia S. Hooten, Raleigh, for North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
STATE v. WHITEHEAD.

No. COA05-830.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Cumberland (03CRS68677).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
[J-77-2015][M.O. – Todd, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, BY KATHLEEN G. KANE, ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, BY**  **TERESA D. MILLER, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER; AND PENNSYLVANIA**  **DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BY DR. KAREN MURPHY, SECRETARY OF**  **HEALTH**

**v.**

**UPMC, A NONPROFIT CORP.; UPE, A/K/A HIGHMARK HEALTH, A**  **NONPROFIT CORP., AND HIGHMARK, INC., A NONPROFIT CORP.** 

**APPEAL OF: UPMC, A NONPROFIT CORP.**  **:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 48 MAP 2015** 

**Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 334 MD**  **2014 dated 5/29/15**

**ARGUED: October 6, 2015**

CONCURRING OPINION

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: November 30, 2015

**I join the majority opinion subject only to the follo wing difference.** 

**I agree with Mr. Justice Baer that there is less of an am biguity in the Vulnerable** 

**Populations Clause of the Consent Decree than that ma jority opinion portrays, in light of** 

**his apt explanation that the third sentence simply is no t illegal or meaningless if directed** 

**to participants in Medicare Parts A and B alone. See**  **Dissenting Opinion, slip op.**  **at 6-7**

**& 10. Nevertheless, I believe that there is still suffi cient ambiguity to justify the inquiry,** **[J-77-2014][M.O. – Todd, J.] - 2**

**beyond the four corners of the Consent Decree, into the reason why the specific** 

**“continue to contract” language did not encompass Medicar e Advantage.** 

**In this regard, in the Consent Decree “Medicare” and “ Medicare Advantage” are** 

**treated collectively as a single vulnerable-population segment -- under the sub-clause** 

**“(i)” – in the first sentence of the Vulnerable Popula tions clause. This would seem to me** 

**to bolster the plausibility of the drafter(s) having u sed the terms “Medicare participating** 

**consumers” in the third sentence as a shorthand encompassing the Medicare units** 

**previously treated on a collective basis. Particularly in the landscape of the broader** 

**understanding, captured in the majority opinion, of t he overarching intent to protect** 

**members of vulnerable populations – defined as includ ing Medicare Advantage** 

**participants – and the parens patriae**  **overlay of the case, I support the finding of**

**ambiguity and the consequences flowing from this determi nation.**
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Allin Corporation wholly owns the following subsidiaries:



|                                       |  |                        |  |                                                          
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                     |  | State of Incorporation |  | Additional Names under which Subsidiary Conducts Business
|Allin Consulting of Pennsylvania, Inc. |  | Pennsylvania           |  | Allin Consulting                                         
|Allin Corporation of California        |  | California             |  | Allin Consulting                                         
|Allin Interactive Corporation          |  | Delaware               |  | Allin Interactive                                        
|Allin Network Products, Inc.           |  | California             |  |                                                          
|Allin Holdings Corporation             |  | Delaware               |  |                                                          
|CodeLab Technology Group, Inc.         |  | Delaware               |  | CodeLab                                                  

Except as noted above, each subsidiary does business exclusively under its corporate name, with or
without the corporate indicator.



124
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jarrod Michael Taylor, Appellant

No. 06-17-00220-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017F00164). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jarrod Michael Taylor, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 31, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk