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

EXHIBIT 31.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Sass Peress, Chief Executive Officer of ICP SolarTechnologies Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that: 

1. 

I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ICP Solar Technologies Inc.; 

2. 

Based on myknowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

3. 

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. 

Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) 

designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared; 

b) 

evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

c) 

disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. 

Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) 

allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofour financial reporting internal controls which are reasonably 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 employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: December 15, 2008 

/s/ *Sass Peress*---------------------------------- Sass Peress Chief Executive Officer 

----
| Subsidiaries                           |   | PercentageOwned |   | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                   |   |            |   |                              |
| Third Federal Bank(a)                  |   | 100             | %      | United States                     |
|                                   |   |            |   |                              |
| TF Investments Corporation(a)          |   | 100             | %      | Delaware                          |
|                                   |   |            |   |                              |
| Teragon Financial Corporation(a)(b)    |   | 100             | %      | Pennsylvania                      |
|                                   |   |            |   |                              |
| Penns Trail Development Corporation(a) |   | 100             | %      | Delaware                          |
|                                   |   |            |   |                              |
| Third Delaware Corporation(a)(b)       |   | 100             | %      | Delaware                          |

| (a) | The operations of this subsidiary are included in the consolidated financial statements contained in the 2010 Annual Report to Stockholders incorporated herein by reference. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | Third Delaware Corporation and Teragon Financial Corporation are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Third Federal Bank. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6500

HAROLD BOYD, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT J. HAYNES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02081-FL)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harold Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent on one of

Boyd’s claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order Boyd seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10610 Summary Calendar

**Fidel Salazar,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Lannette Linthicum; Philip Keiser; Cynthia Jumper; F. Parker Hudson, III; Jeffrey K. Beeson; Erin A. Wyrick;**  **John W. Burruss; Robert Greenberg; Dee A. Budgewater; Preston Johnson, Jr.,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CV

- 124

Before **Stewart, Haynes**  **,** and **Duncan ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Fidel Salazar, former Texas prisoner # 1506617, appeals the dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 28 U.S.C.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 29, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10610 Document: 00516412489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2022No. 21

- 10610

2 § 1915A, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). He argued
that numerous defendants, including D r. Melonie Sandoval and Correctional Managed Health Care Committee (CMHCC), were deliberately indifferent
to Salazar’s serious medical needs when he was incarcerated by refusing to provide him with treatment for Hepatitis C. Salazar also moves for appoint ment of counsel.
Salazar contends that the district court erred in dismissing his suit against Melonie Sandoval because her refusal to provide treatment for
Salazar’ s Hepatitis C violated hi s Eighth Amendment rights. However, we lack jurisdiction to consi der this claim because Salazar filed an untimely notice of appeal from that partial final judgment. See **Fed. R. Civ. P** . 54(b); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago , 138 S. Ct. 13, 16

- 17 (2017); Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Serv’g, L.L.C. , 916 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2019); Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters. , 170 F.3d 536, 538

- 39 (5th Cir. 1999) ; Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc. , 981 F.2d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 1993)

. In addition, to the extent Salazar challenges the dismissal of his claims against the CMHCC defendants, he has abandoned that argument by failing
to raise it in his opening brief to this court. See **Fed. R. App**  **. P** . 28(a)(8); Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993) ; Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987 ).
The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED** in part with respect to Salazar’s claims against the CMHCC defendants and the appeal is

**DISMISSED** in part for lack of jurisdiction with respect to his claims against Sandoval. The motion for appointment of counsel is **DENIED** as unnecessary as Salazar retained counsel after filing the motion. Case: 21-10610 Document: 00516412489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2022
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40595

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EMILLIO DELFINO CUA-MONROY, also known as Emilio Delfino 

Cuamonroy,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-12-1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Emillio Delfino CuaMonroy has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cua-Monroy has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

 

* 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

December 17, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40595 Document: 00515239278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
No. 19-40595

2

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40595 Document: 00515239278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2019
STATE v. Joshua SANCHEZ

410PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 5, 2017

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Sanchez, Joshua.

Ebony J. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 1st of June 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of June 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 5th day of July 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. * 

# U nit ed Sta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-1751 ROBERT FOXWORTH, Petitioner, Appellee,

v . PETER ST. AMAND, Respondent, Appellant.

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Selya and Siler, Circuit Judges. *

ORDER FOR CERTIFICATION OF A QUESTION TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Entered: June 29, 2009 For the reasons stated in our opinion of even date in this case, submitted with this order, we certify the following question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:

In considering the petitioner's application, filed in 2000, for leave to obtain further appellate review of the 1996 Massachusetts Appeals Court dec i s i o n, did the Supreme Judicial
Cour t r e o p e n t h e f i n a l i t y o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s 1 9 9 2 c o n v i c t i o n in 2002?This court certifies that this question is determinative

of a claim in this case and that it appears to us that there is no controlling precedent in either the decisions or rules of practice of the Supreme Judicial Court.

In responding to this question, we invite any additional guidance about relevant M a ssachusetts law or practice that the Supreme Judicial Court may wish to offer.

The clerk of this court is to forward, under the official seal of this court, a copy o f the certified question and our opinion in this case, along with the briefs and trial transcripts filed by the part i e s, to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Pending the receipt of a response, we shall retain appellate jurisdiction.
By the Court /s/ Richard C. Donovan, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

[cc: Ms. Susan Mellen, Clerk, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Hon. Rya W. Zobel, Ms. Sarah Thornton, Clerk, United States District C o u r t for the district of Massachusetts, Mr. John M. Thompson, Ms. Susan G. Reardon & Ms. Linda J. Thompson.]
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Windstream Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery R. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) | 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 the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeffery R. Gardner               
|Jeffery R. Gardner                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|November 7, 2008                     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Windstream
Corporation and will be retained by Windstream Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40053 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL AGUIRRE-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-94-201 (CR-M-93-184-2)

- - - - - - - - - - August 24, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Manuel Aguirre-Contreras appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His arguments that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the Presentence Report contained erroneous information, and that his base offense level should not have considered the use of a weapon because he did not plead guilty to a weapons count, need not be reviewed because he did not present them to the district court. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).No. 95-40053 -2-

** Rule 11 addresses three "core concerns": whether the guilty plea was coerced; whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges; and whether the defendant understood the consequences of his plea. See United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d296, 300 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (direct appeal from guiltyplea conviction). As to whether his guilty plea was voluntary, relief under § 2255 is reserved for jurisdictional or constitutional issues.
See United States v. Shaid , 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1076 (1992). The formal or technical failure to follow Fed. Rule Crim. P. 11 ** is not grounds for relief under § 2255 unless the alleged error resulted, inter alia, in a "complete miscarriage of justice" or in a proceeding "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure." United States v. Timmreck , 441 U.S. 780, 784- 85 (1979). At his rearraignment, Aguirre-Contreras indicated that he understood that he faced a minimum sentence of sixty months imprisonment. Additionally, although "a guilty plea induced by an unkept bargain is involuntary," and therefore unconstitutional, United States v. Watson , 988 F.2d 544, 553 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), cert. denied , 114 U.S. 698 (1994), Aguirre-Contreras does not suggest that the Government did not keep its bargain in recommending the low end of the guidelines. Consequently, he makes no showing that the requisite miscarriage of justice occurred which would entitle him to relief under § 2255. See Timmreck , 441 U.S. at 784-85.
AFFIRMED.
#### Samuel L. Haskins et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Howard E. Haskins, Appellants, *v.*Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, and Virginia M. Haskins, Impleaded Defendant, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 10, 1943.

*528
      *Samuel L. Bienenfeld*for appellants.

*Frank H. Walsh*for respondent.

Memorandum *Per Curiam.*

The decision herein not having been rendered within fourteen days after the case had been submitted to the court, as required by section 119 of the New York City Municipal Court Code (L. 1915, ch. 279), and no consent extending the time having been given in conformity with rule IX of the Rules of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, the judgment cannot stand.

Judgment and orders reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

Shientag, McLaughlin and Hecht, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4256 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require, in counting 

the number of a species in a State for purposes of determining whether 

the species is an endangered or threatened species, inclusion of the 

number of the species on State and private lands as determined by 

the State, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2014 

Mr. STEWART (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, and Mr. CHAFFETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require, 

in counting the number of a species in a State for 

purposes of determining whether the species is an endangered or threatened species, inclusion of the number 

of the species on State and private lands as determined 

by the State, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Endangered Species 

5 Improvement Act of 2014’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4256 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF NUMBER OF A SPECIES ON STATE 

2 AND PRIVATE LANDS IN DETERMINATIONS 

3 UNDER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Section 4(b)(1) of the Endan5 gered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1353(b)(1)) is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(C) In counting the number of a species in a State 

8 for purposes of determining under this section whether the 

9 species is an endangered species or threatened species, the 

10 Secretary shall count all of the species without regard to 

11 whether it is found on State, private, or tribal lands as 

12 determined by the State for purposes of recovery of the 

13 species and determination of listing status on the basis 

14 of the best scientific and commercial data available.’’. 

15 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub16 section (a) shall apply beginning on the first day of the 

17 year of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 506 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4197 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period 

of certain authority with respect to judicial review of 

Merit Systems Protection Board decisions relating to 

whistleblowers, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘All Circuit Review Ex5 tension Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4197 RS

1 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

2 BOARD DECISIONS RELATING TO WHISTLE3 BLOWERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, 

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘5-year’’. 

7 (b) DIRECTOR REVIEW.—Section 7703(d)(2) of such 

8 title is amended by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and inserting ‘‘5- 

9 year’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 506 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4197 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the 

purposes. decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other cial review of Merit Systems Protection Board period of certain authority with respect to judiJULY 31, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Frederick
Lwee, Principal Financial Officer of BioForm Medical, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



|(i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                            
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | ---------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: MAY 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ FREDERICK LWEE
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | FREDERICK LWEE             
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Principal Financial Officer