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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I,Patricia M. Newman, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Westaff, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to take the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)    All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 31, 2005                    |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
| /s/ Patricia M. Newman                |   |
| Patricia M. Newman                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Westaff, Inc.                         |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsJos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-103962, 333-85426, 333-57492 and 333-20363 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated April 16, 2007, relating to the
financial statements of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control for financial reporting, appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc for the year ended
February 3, 2007.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPBaltimore, MarylandApril 16, 2007

---
STATE of North Carolina v. James Earl PARKER.

No. 403P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

James Earl Parker, for Parker, James Earl.

*617Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Nash County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
# C_2008079EN.01000501.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-419/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Obligation to recover)

(2008/C 79/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini, M. Konstantinidis, D. Triantafyllou and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou, P. Mylonopoulos, acting as Agents, V. Christianos and P. Anestis, dikigoroi)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take measures to comply with Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 of 14 September 2005 on the recovery of aid granted to Olympic Airlines

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 December 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 December 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, James R. Kupferschmid, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, 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 included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        May 11, 2006 By:  /s/ JAMES R. KUPFERSCHMID    James R. Kupferschmid    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1375.

#### Bass *v.*Masters & Agee.

Certiorari, from Muscogee superior court — Judge Martin. August 4, 1908.

Submitted November 24,

Decided December 8, 1908.

*H. O. Cameron, J. E. Chapman,*for- plaintiff in error.

*Bowden & Goldstein,*contra.

Powell, J.

1.-It is not good ground for the dismissal of a certiorari that the petition was not properly vei'ified, if it has been sanctioned and the magistrate has answered verifying its recitals. *Willims*v. *Mangum,*119 *Ga.*628 (46 S. E. 835).

2. A certiorari bond may be executed by an agent. It will be presumed prima facie that one who has executed such bond as agent was duly authorized to do so, unless it affirmatively appears that the agency was created by an undisclosed power of attorney. *New York Life Ins. Co.*v. *Rhodes,*4 *Ga. App.*25 (60 S. E. 828) ; *Foley Mfg. Co.*v. *Bell,*4 *Ga. App.*447 (61 S. E. 856).

3. There was no error in sustaining the certiorari and granting a new trial. ' *Judgment affirmed.*
In the Matter of T.D.C., M.D.C., T.D.C.

No. COA15-1269.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Frenchis Gerald Abraham, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 2, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 25, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Larry B. Hyman, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hyman shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Hyman shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 19 (Monday, January 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 4820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1848]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE


NCCC Advisory Board Meeting

    The Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice 
under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act), that it will 
hold a meeting of the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) Advisory 
Board. The Board advises the Director of the National Civilian 
Community Corps (NCCC) concerning the administration of the program and 
assists in the development and administration of the Corps.
    Date and Time: Wednesday, February 2, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Place: The meeting will be held in the offices of the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), 1100 New York Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC 20527.
    Status: Open.
    Matters to be Considered: At this meeting the Board will discuss 
the future role of the Advisory Board to better support goals and 
strategic initiatives. Additionally, the Board will discuss issues 
related to developing program resources, recruitment, general awareness 
of the NCCC program and overall program operations.
    Accommodations: Upon request, meeting notices will be made 
available in alternative formats to accommodate visual and hearing 
impairments. Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation 
should notify to Corporation's contact person by 5 p.m. Monday, January 
31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Fran Campion, 1201 New York 
Avenue, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20525. Telephone (202) 606-5000, 
ext. 180. (T.D.D. (202) 565-2799).

    Dated: January 26, 2005.
Thomas L. Bryant,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-1848 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P
# C_2008064EN.01001101.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris

(Case C-532/06) (1)

1

(Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Carrying out of a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and implementing measure for a residential area - Criteria which may be accepted as ‘criteria for qualitative selection’ or ‘award criteria’ - Economically most advantageous tender - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the contract documents or contract notice - Subsequent determination of weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice - Principle of equal treatment of economic operators and obligation of transparency)

(2008/C 64/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

Applicants:

Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Criteria for awarding contract — Subsequent fixing of the specific weighting for each criterion when the award procedure was already under way

Operative part of the judgment

Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the ensuing obligation of transparency, Article 36(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, precludes the contracting authority in a tendering procedure from stipulating at a later date the weighting factors and sub-criteria to be applied to the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Janu ary 23, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00397

- CV

MPII, INC. D/B/A Mission Park Funeral Chapels and Cemeteries

, Appellant s

v.

Timothy MOTT and Sharlotte Mott,

Appelle es

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI00572

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Unopposed Motion for Extension of T ime to File Appell ee ’s Brief is hereby

GRANTED . Time is extended to March 1, 2019. “No further extensions absent extraordinary

circumstances.”

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m y hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
----

(2004/C 65 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Welfare of dairy cows

Modern dairy cows have been bred to produce extremely high milk yields. This leads to cows suffering from a range of serious health and welfare problems including: metabolic hunger as they find it difficult to consume sufficient food to support the high milk yields; digestive disorders; an increased incidence of lameness; and lethal production diseases. After around four or less years of production the cows are often chronically exhausted and suffer severe loss of body condition and are culled.

Will the Commission request the European Food Safety Authority to ask the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health to prepare a report on the health and welfare of dairy cows?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Honourable Member will be aware that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1) as an independent scientific point of reference from which the Commission may request scientific opinions. A Scientific Committee and various scientific Panels, including a Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, have been established by EFSA to provide these scientific opinions.

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health is a regulatory committee consisting of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a Commission representative that advises on implementing legislative rules.

It should be noted that the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted in 1999 a report on animal welfare aspects of the use of bovine somatotrophin, which contained a specific chapter describing welfare problems in high yielding dairy cows. A number of research projects funded under the Community's Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development have also addressed the issue of the health and welfare of dairy cows. Specifically, the Commission currently supports research on lameness in dairy cattle and on nutrition of dairy cattle through the better utilisation of pasture. It also supports projects on the genetics of mastitis and milk production. Research of a more generic welfare nature, such as on cattle transport, also has important implications for dairy cattle.

----

(1)OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    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. Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  March 26, 2008
 /s/ Andrew F. PuzderAndrew F. PuzderChief Executive Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60766

Summary Calendar

FORTUNATO ELENIO LINDAO-DIAZ

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A31 210 182

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Fortunato Elenio Lindao-Diaz (Lindao), a citizen and native of

Ecuador, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) order affirming the immigration judge’s final order of removal. Lindao

argues that his New York conviction for sexual abuse in the first degree was not

a conviction for an aggravated felony or a crime of violence and that he is

entitled to cancellation of removal. He asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not

deprive this court of jurisdiction over his petition for review. He additionally

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60766

2

argues that removal statutes should be construed in favor of aliens. The

government maintains that Lindao cannot raise these issues because did not

raise them before the BIA and that Lindao’s conviction was a conviction for an

aggravated felony depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider Lindao’s

petition under § 1252(a)(2)(C). 

Lindao did not raise before the BIA any of the arguments he raises in this

court. He does not argue, and has not shown, that his administrative remedies

were inadequate. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 2001).

As Lindao failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, we lack

jurisdiction to consider his petition for review. See Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d

179, 181 (5th Cir. 1986). As this case does not present exceptional

circumstances, Lindao’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Ulmer

v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL DENIED.
Ellis et al. v. Huie.

S16A1293

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: October 31, 2016

**Per Curiam**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.