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


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Douglas A. McIntyre, certify that:

      1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of On2 Technologies,
Inc.:

      2) Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

      3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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 we 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 annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this annual 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 function):

            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
annual report whether or not 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.


By: /s/ DOUGLAS A. MCINTYRE
    -----------------------------------------------
    Douglas A. McIntyre
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 29, 2004
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 619 

To prevent congressional reapportionment distortions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prevent congressional reapportionment distortions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair and Accurate 

5 Representation Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) in recent years, millions of aliens have en9 tered the United States in violation of immigration 

10 laws and are now residing illegally in the United 

11 States and are subject to deportation; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 619 IS

1 (2) the established policy of the Bureau of the 

2 Census is to make a concerted effort to count the 

3 foreign-born population within the United States 

4 without making a separate computation for illegal 

5 aliens; and 

6 (3) by including the millions of illegal aliens in 

7 the reapportionment base for the House of Rep8 resentatives, many States will lose congressional rep9 resentation which such States would not have other10 wise lost, thereby violating the constitutional prin11 ciple of ‘‘one man, one vote’’. 

12 SEC. 3. PREVENTION OF CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTION13 MENT DISTORTIONS. 

14 (a) ADJUSTMENTS TO PREVENT DISTORTIONS.— 

15 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended— 

16 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub17 section (h); and 

18 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol19 lowing: 

20 ‘‘(g) The Secretary shall make such adjustments in 

21 total population figures as may be necessary, using such 

22 methods and procedures as the Secretary determines fea23 sible and appropriate, in order that aliens who are in the 

24 United States in violation of the immigration laws of the 

25 United States are not counted in tabulating population 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 619 IS

1 under subsection (b) for the purposes of apportionment 

2 of Representatives in Congress among the several States. 

3 Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to supersede 

4 section 195 of this title.’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 22(a) of 

6 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act To provide for the fifteenth and 

7 subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for appor8 tionment of Representatives in Congress’’, of June 18, 

9 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘as 

10 ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent 

11 decennial census of the population’’ and inserting ‘‘as 

12 ascertained and reported under section 141 of title 13, 

13 United States Code, for each decennial census of popu14 lation’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
STATE v. THOMAS.

No. COA08-209.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS255496).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Edna S. COLEMAN a/k/a Edna Coleman, et al.

No. 92P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Kenneth B. Oettinger, Jr., Charlotte, for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A.).

Lee Williams, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A.).

Joe E. Biesecker, Lexington, for Coleman, Edna S.

Christopher Alan Raines, Lexington, for Coleman, Edna S.

Baxter Chad Ewing, for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A.).

Matthew A. Cherep, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, For Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A.).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of March 2015 by Defendant (Edna S. Coleman) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
Exhibit 8.1



Subsidiaries of Industrias
Bachoco S.A.B. de C.V.



The following chart lists each of our subsidiaries
which we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2013, and April 30, 2014:



| | 1. | Aviser, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | --------------------



| | 2. | Bachoco, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | ---------------------



| | 3. | Bachoco Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | -------------------------------



| | 4. | Campi Alimentos, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | -----------------------------



| | 5. | Operadora de Servicios de Personal, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------



| | 6. | PEC LAB, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | ---------------------



| | 7. | Secba, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | -------------------



| | 8. | Sepetec, S. A. de C.V.
| | -- | ----------------------



| | 9. | Servicios de Personal Administrativo, S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------



| | 10. | Induba Pavos, S.A de C.V.
| | --- | -------------------------



| | 11. | Bachoco USA, LLC and Subsidiaries
| | --- | ---------------------------------



Each of the Subsidiaries listed is incorporated under the laws
of Mexico, except by Bachoco USA, LLC and Subsidiaries.
# CE2004084EN.01049401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/494 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/494

---

(2004/C 84 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   EU egg producers

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the acute concerns amongst egg producers in the European Union over the threat to their livelihoods from a combination of new legislation on the welfare of hens and the potential increase of egg imports under the terms of the ongoing WTO round?

What steps are being taken by the European Commission to ensure a level playing field in the international trade in eggs and in providing adequate compensation to European Union egg producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

(12 September 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-l625/03 by Mrs Jackson (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 147.

1

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) and Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

In the last twelve months technical support offices, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private firms financed by the Commission have notified over 500 vacancies at European level that were reserved exclusively for applicants of ‘English mother tongue’ and ‘native English speakers’ (www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15). In these notices, applications are invited, not from candidates with ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English, but explicitly and exclusively from those of English mother tongue.

Is the Commission aware that the Intrasoft and Ogilvy undertakings, with which the Commission has already worked, recently sought to recruit an applicant of English mother tongue exclusively? Did the Commission oppose that action? If so, how? If not, why not?

Does the Commission intend to continue to work with organisations that discriminate against non-native English speakers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2003)

The Commission explained its position concerning the problem in general in numerous replies to written questions. The Honourable Members are therefore referred to the replies of the Commission given to Written Questions: No E-4100/00 by Mr Staes (1), E-0779/01 by Mr Staes (2), E-1356/01 by Mr Gemelli (3), E-1681/01 by Mr Staes (4), E-1682/01 by Mr Staes (4), E-2331/01 by Mr Ferrer (4), E-2900/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-2901/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-2944/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-3189/01 by Mr Rothley (5), E-3572/01 by Mr Staes (6), E-0941/02 by Mr Staes (7), E-2764/02 by Mr Staes (8), E-1733/03 by Mr Leinen (9) and E-2018/03 by Mr Staes (10).

All Commission services have been made aware of possible discriminatory job advertisements and asked to take the necessary steps as regards their contractors. The Commission tries to avoid co-operation with organisations which publish job advertisements with a ‘native speaker’ criterion. The Commission was not aware of the cases referred to by the Honourable Members. Contact is being taken with the undertakings involved in this respect.

The Commission would also like to reiterate its intention to use its legal powers to fight against the use of a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements.

----

(1)OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(2)OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(3)OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(4)OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.

(5)OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.

(6)OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.

(7)OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

(8)OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2002.

(9)OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 221.

(10)  See page 201.

----
PULTE HOME CORP. v. INSURANCE CO., et al.

No. 511P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Robert M. Darroch, for American Southern Ins. Co.

Neil A. Reimann, for Pulte Home Corp.

Theodore B. Smyth, Raleigh, for Trans-America Investment.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of October 2007 by Defendant for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
----

(2004/C 65 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Legislation on fermented milk

In the Commission's answer to priority Written Question P-0027/03 (1) and to my Written Question E-0873/03 (2) on the denomination ‘yoghurt’, Commissioner Fischler states that ‘the Commission received several complaints concerning the Spanish legislation, based particularly on Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 (3) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs’ and that it was ‘currently examining these complaints and the legal situation in the Member States as regards the denomination of yoghurt.’

In its turn, the Codex Alimentarious Commission, which was created in 1963 by the FAO and the World Health Organisation (WHO) and is an international reference body that reports to the United Nations and the WHO, adopted a standard on fermented milk at its meeting in Rome at the end of June 2003 that makes it impossible for desserts pasteurised after fermentation to be denominated ‘yoghurts’, at least in countries without any legislation governing this area.

In the light of the above, and to avoid creating any further confusion, how would the Commission view the introduction of common legislation on fermented milk and regulation of the denomination ‘yoghurt’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission took notice of the adoption of a standard for fermented milk by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. However, some aspects like presence of characteristic bacteria, permitted raw materials, reference to heat treatment, content of non dairy ingredients and labelling may have to be addressed in a more precise way than in the Codex standard. The Commission is therefore examining the need for yoghurt legislation and may submit a proposal to the Council.

----

(1)OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 147.

(2)OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 209.

(3)OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

----
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Tier Technologies, Inc.; and |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| January 28, 2011 | /s/ Alex P. Hart                      |
|------------------|---------------------------------------|
|             | Alex P. Hart                          |
|             | President and Chief Executive Officer |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

____________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 21, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 126509(53)(56) Justices 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 126509 

v COA: 244553 

Shiawassee CC: 02-007574-FC 

RICKY ALLEN PARKS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, motions by defendant-appellant and by plaintiffappellee for extension of the time for filing their supplemental briefs are considered and, 

it appearing the briefs were filed August 18, 2008, the time for filing is extended to that 

date. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

August 21, 2008 

 Clerk
IN RE D.W.

No. COA07-948.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (06JT31).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 11, 2014 518740 

________________________________

In the Matter of ERICK M.

CAMPBELL, 

Petitioner, 

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

COREY BEDARD, as Acting 

Director of Special Housing 

 and Inmate Disciplinary 

 Programs,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 21, 2014

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ.

__________

Erick M. Campbell, Attica, petitioner pro se.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating

a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug

use after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge with the explanation that

he has a severe drug problem. At the conclusion of the tier III

disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty

as charged. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal,

petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. 

We confirm. Given petitioner's plea of guilty with an

explanation, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of
-2- 518740 

the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of

Fields v Prack, 120 AD3d 1510 [2014]; Matter of Robinson v Prack,

119 AD3d 1309, 1309 [2014]). To the extent that petitioner

contends that he was incompetent to adequately participate in the

hearing, the confidential testimony establishes that the Hearing

Officer properly considered petitioner's mental health status and

ability to participate in the hearing (see Matter of Lashway v

Fischer, 110 AD3d 1420, 1420 [2013]; Matter of Sabino v Prack,

101 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2012]). Petitioner's remaining contentions

have been reviewed and are either unpersuasive or unpreserved for

our review.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT
        32**
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
        hereby
        certifies in his capacity as an officer of LSB Financial Corp. (the
“Registrant”) that the Quarterly Report of the Registrant of Form 10-Q for the
        period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a)
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
        in
        such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
        financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results
        of operations of the Registrant for such period.
 
 
 
 Date:
              August
                10, 2005
              
              /s/
                Randolph F. WilliamsRandolph
                  F. Williams
                President
                  and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
              August
                10, 2005
              
              /s/
                Mary Jo DavidMary
                  Jo David
                Vice
                  President and Chief Financial
                  Officer
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-153024, 333-44725 and 333-127500 on Form S-8 pertaining to enherent Corp.’s Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and enherent Corp.’s 2005 StockIncentive Plan of our report dated March 30, 2009 pertaining to the financial statements as of December 31, 2008 and for the year then ended of enherent Corp. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of enherent Corp. 

/s/ Cornick, Garber & Sandler, LLP 

NewYork, NY 

March 30, 2010
**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**





For
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, James Meyer, the chairman,
      president, and chief executive officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:





(i)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




By:
            /s/
                BILL JOLL*President
                  and**Chief
              Executive Officer**On2
                Technologies, Inc.*


April
      30,
      2007