alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS FOR FORM 10-K**I, Steven P. Dussek, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Cellular Corporation (the “registrant”);  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 tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;  (b) 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  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely 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 a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20529]



[[Page 59802]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Harris 
Ellsworth & Levin on behalf of Trinity Industries, Inc. (WB605-1--10/5/
2005) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2003 and 2004 
Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of the requests may be obtained from the 
Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-20529 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS FELIPE MANGUAL, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:04-

cr-00235-RWT-25; 8:08-cv-02657-RWT)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luis Felipe Mangual, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. 

Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Felipe Mangual, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Mangual has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### ELECTRO SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Joseph Henry FREEMAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Martin McIlvena, and Margaret McIlvena, Defendants/Respondents.

No. ED 81482.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 22, 2003.

Paul J. Puricelli, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Michael H. James, Chesterfield, MO, for respondent.

*869Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR, P.J, and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Electro Security Systems, Inc. (Buyer) appeals from the trial court’s order granting Martin1 and Margaret Mcllvena’s (Sellers) motion to dismiss Count II of Buyer’s first amended petition to set aside an arbitration award. On appeal Buyer argues the trial court erred in setting aside the arbitration award because Buyer pleaded facts that support vacating the arbitrator’s award due to fraud in the arbitrator’s decision or decision-making process and pleaded fraud with specificity and particularity under Section 435.405(1) RSMo 2000. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error was not preserved. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Sellers’ motion to dismiss Buyer’s appeal that was taken with the case is denied.

1

. Martin Mcllvena died during the pendency of the appeal. Joseph Henry Freeman, Personal Representative of his estate, has been substituted in his stead.
STATE v. Jonathan E. BRUNSON

247P16-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Jonathan Eugene Brunson, for Brunson, Jonathan Eugene.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

*176The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of October 2018 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
H. R. 41 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. 

(a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘$20,725,000,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$30,425,000,000’’. 

(b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the 

Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) 

of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution 

on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant 

to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 

933(g)). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
SYKES, et al. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

248A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, William A. Blancato, GAL Appellate Attorney, Leon E. Porter, Attorney at Law, Ellis B. Drew, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, For Sykes, Susan, et al.

Elizabeth L. Winters, Attorney at Law, Chad D. Hansen, Attorney at Law, Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, For Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina

D. Erik Albright, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, For Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Inc.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Medcost LLC

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro

Benjamin R. Norman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro

W. Michael Dowling, Attorney at Law

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of January 2019 for Peter M. Boyle to be admitted Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
Docket 147/400

#### Edith P. Bolden and another, complainants, *v.*Fidelity Union Trust Company, defendant.

[Decided March 19th, 1947.]

*Mr. Nathaniel Alper (Mr. Richard B. Mason),*for the complainants.

*Messrs. Emerson, Emery •& Danzig (Mr. Edward J. Brown),*for the defendant.

*515Bigelow, Y. C.

The late William Budd caused life insurance policies upon his life in the sum of $100,000, to be made payable to Fidelity Union Trust Company as trustee. The declaration of trust required the trustee to pay from the principal of the trust fund “to Emma Perry, if in the employ of the donor at the time of his death, for a period of five years from and after the death of the donor the sum of $200 quarterly commencing from the date of the donor’s death.” The condition that Mrs. Perry be in the employ of Mr. Budd at the time of his death was fulfilled, but she outlived him less than five years. Does the right to the annuity survive?

An annuity with no specified duration, is limited to the life of the annuitant. *Byrne*v. Byrne, *123 N. J. Eq. 6; 124 N. J. Eq. 273.*But in the absence of an indication that the donor intended otherwise, an annuity for a term of years or for the life of another, does not cease with the death of the annuitant. The right to the annuity passes to his personal representative. *3 C. J. S. 1378. Harrison*v. *Marden (Mass.), 10 N. E. Rep. (2d) 109; 112 A. L. R. 577.*The trustee will be directed to pay the remaining installments to Mrs. Perry’s executrices.
EXHIBIT 12.1



                       AKI HOLDING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                         Holding                                     Predecessor
                                   ------------------------------------------------------    ---------------------------
                                                                             December 16,    July 1, 1997    Fiscal year
                                                                             1997 through      through          ended
                                        Fiscal year ended June 30,             June 30,      December 15,     June 30,
                                   2001            2000           1999           1998            1997           1997
                                   ----            ----           ----           ----            ----           ----
<S>                             <C>            <C>            <C>              <C>            <C>            <C>
Income (loss) before
  income taxes and
  extraordinary item            $   2,942      $    (850)     $   (5,456)      $  (7,545)     $   3,234      $   7,117
Add:
Interest on all indebtedness
  which includes amortization
  of deferred financing costs      16,911         17,401          16,740          11,327          2,646          6,203
                                ---------      ---------      ----------       ---------      ---------      ---------

Earnings available for fixed
  charges                          19,853         16,551          11,284           3,782          5,880         13,320
Fixed charges                      16,911         17,401          16,740          11,327          2,646          6,203
                                ---------      ---------       ---------       ---------      ---------      ---------

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                      1.2x            ---             ---            ---            2.2x           2.1x


</TABLE>

Earnings were not sufficient to cover fixed charges by $851, $5,456, and $7,545
for the years ended June 30, 2000 and 1999 and the period from December 16, 1997
to June 30, 1998, respectively.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00600

- CR

Fernando Gomez Valdez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 1288

- 18

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 27, 2019
In the MATTER OF: K.K.-K.C. & K.E.C. II

No. COA18-18

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

AFFIRMED.
SYKES, et al. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

248A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 24, 2018

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, William A. Blancato, GAL Appellate Attorney, Leon E. Porter, Attorney at Law, Ellis B. Drew, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Sykes, Susan, et al.

Elizabeth L. Winters, Attorney at Law, Chad D. Hansen, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

D. Erik Albright, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Inc.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Medcost LLC.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Greensboro, Attorney at Law.

Benjamin R. Norman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

W. Michael Dowling, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of August 2018 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of August 2018."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 10th day of October 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 21.1
                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MISSION WEST PROPERTIES



Mission West Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership

Mission West Properties,  L.P.I, a Delaware limited partnership,  doing business
in California as Mission West Properties I, L.P.

Mission West Properties,  L.P.II, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business
in California as Mission West Properties II, L.P.

Mission West Properties, L.P.III, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business
in California as Mission West Properties III, L.P.

MIT Realty, Inc., a California corporation wholly owned by the Company.

Mission West Executive  Aircraft Center,  Inc., a California  corporation wholly
owned by the Company.
STATE of North Carolina v. Desiree PETERSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-1336

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

# AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Manufacturing Council will hold a full Council meeting to discuss topics related to the state of manufacturing. The Manufacturing Council is a Secretarial Board at the Department of Commerce, established to ensure regular communication between Government and the manufacturing sector. This will be the third meeting of The Manufacturing Council and will include updates by the Council's three subcommittees. For information about the Council, please visit the Manufacturing Council Web site at:                         *http://www.manufacturing.gov/​council.htm.*

# DATES:

                        February 18, 2005.                         *Time:*                         1:30 p.m.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Henry Ford Museum, Lovett Hall, 20900 Oakwood Blvd., Dearborn, MI 48124. This program is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be submitted no later than February 10, 2005, to The Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, Washington, DC, 20230. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1369). The Executive Secretariat encourages interested parties to refer to The Manufacturing Council Web site 

                        (                        *http://www.manufacturing.gov/​council/​*) for the most up-to-date information about the meeting and the Council.                     

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Sam Giller, 

Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council. 

[FR Doc. 05-2006 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
#### Z. M. Sawyer, plaintiff in error, *vs.*E. Vories, defendant in error.

(By two judges.) Parol evidence is not^admissible to add a covenant to a deed. 27th. February, 1872.

Parol to vary writing. Before Judge Harrell. Stewart Superior Court. October Term, 1871.

The opinion reports the facts.

E. L. Douglass; H. Fielder; Bell & Tucker, for plaintiff in error.

J. L. Wimberly; J. T. Clark, for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

This was a rule to foreclose a mortgage by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, on a tract of land on which were two mills, and which had been bought by the plaintiff in error from the defendant in error for milling purposes, at a price, as alleged, of $12,000 00; $10,000 00 of which had been paid, and the suit was for the balance. The plaintiff in error set up as a defense to the foreclosure, in his answer to the rule *nisi,*a parol agreement by Vories, at the time of the sale, as part of the consideration of the contract, not to sell another mill-site owned by him, near the one bargained for, or if he did, to restrain the purchaser in his deed from erecting any mill thereon. The answer further stated, that Vories^ in violation of this parol agreement, had sold the other mill-site, without restriction, and that the purchaser had erected a mill thereon, to the great damage of the plaintiff in error. The note, for the non-payment of which the foreclosure was sought, after reading in the usual form, had the following words added to it: “In purchase of the lands, etc., known as the upper Vories mill-place.” The defendant in error demurred to the answer for insufficiency, and moved to make his rule absolute. The Court sustained the demur*663rer, and granted the motion. *We*think the Court right in its ruling. In the case of *Mell vs. Mooney,*30 Georgia, 414, relied on by the plaintiff in error, the question of adding to a written contract by parol did not arise, and the subject is but incidentally mentioned. The uniform current of the decisions of this Court is, that parol evidence cannot be received to enlarge or add to a written contract: See *Logan vs. Bond,*13 Ga. R., 192; *Wyche vs. Winship,*13 Ga. R., 208; *Griswold vs. Scott, lb.,*210. In the present case, the proposition is to add to the terms not only of the deed of sale of land to the plaintiff in error, but also to the terms of his note given for the purchase-money. It is in effect an attempt to engraft by parol a covenant upon the deed, and to add a condition to the note. We know of no case that has gone so far.

Judgment affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Victor RINEHART

No. COA18-92

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
```

                                  April 1, 2002

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Scotia Pacific Company LLC - Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing
    Clients

Dear Sir or Madam:

         Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to Scotia Pacific Company LLC that
its audit was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit,
availability of national office consultation and that availability of personnel
at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to our audit.

                                   By:       /S/ GARY L. CLARK
                                                 Gary L. Clark
                                   Vice President - Finance and Administration
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```