alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Robert C. Buhrmaster,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jostens, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)     designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during this period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)     all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 14, 2004 | /s/   Robert  C. Buhrmaster         |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Robert C.  Buhrmaster                              |
|                     | Chairman of the  Board and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                   
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements
of operations of the Company's Form 10-Q/A No. 1, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      470
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18
<INVENTORY>                                        506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1194
<PP&E>                                            1450
<DEPRECIATION>                                     547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1142
<BONDS>                                            944
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                         933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3873    
<SALES>                                            591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   591
<CGS>                                              318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     47 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 32 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      22 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                        54 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74 
        

</TABLE>
**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**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SoftNet Technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Holt, President, Chief Operating Officer and Director, and Karen Musialowicz, Controller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:				(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 12(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 result of operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the report.***                                                                                                           ***/s/  ***Kevin Holt                                                                                                           ***Kevin Holt***                                                                                                           ***President, COO, Director***                                                                                                           ***/s/  ***Karen Musialowicz                                                                                                           ***Karen Musialowicz***                                                                                                           ***Controller***                                                                                                           ***(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)				August 14, 2006				A Signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SoftNet Technology Corp. and will be retained by SoftNet Technology Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i)
Registration Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 33-37187 on Form S-3 filed February 27, 1991; (iii)
Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iv)
Registration Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; and (v)
Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996, and in the
related Prospectuses, of our reports with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and subsidiaries included and/or
incorporated by reference, in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries
Inc. for the year ended June 30, 1997.
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
Chicago, Illinois
September 24, 1997
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 the Interior

###### Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

# AGENCY:

Minerals Management Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

List of Restricted Joint Bidders. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Minerals Management Service by the joint bidding provisions of 30 CFR 256.41, each entity within one of the following groups shall be restricted from bidding with any entity in any other of the following groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held during the bidding period November 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. The List of Restricted Joint Bidders published in the                         **Federal Register**                         May 3, 2005, covered the period May 1, 2005, through October 31, 2005.                     

Group I. Exxon Mobil Corporation. ExxonMobil Exploration Company. 

Group II. Shell Oil Company. Shell Offshore Inc. SWEPI LP. Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc. Shell Consolidated Energy Resources Inc. Shell Land & Energy Company. Shell Onshore Ventures Inc. Shell Offshore Properties and Capital II, Inc. Shell Rocky Mountain Production LLC. Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. 

Group III. BP America Production Company. BP Exploration & Production Inc. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 

Group IV. TOTAL E&P USA, Inc. 

                        Group V. Chevron Texaco Corporation. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Texaco Inc. Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.                               ( print page 67500)    

Group VI. ConocoPhillips Company. 

Group VII. Eni Petroleum Co. Inc. Eni Petroleum Exploration Co. Inc. Eni Deepwater LLC. Eni Oil USA LLC. 

Group VIII. Petrobras America Inc. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

R. M. “Johnnie” Burton, 

Director, Minerals Management Service. 

[FR Doc. 05-22125 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
#### WALDMAER RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8271

December 5, 1975

542 P.2d 1065

*783
      *Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Michael Fondi,*District Attorney, and *Terry Friedman,*Deputy District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In the early morning of September 22,1974, the Carson City Sheriff’s Department received and broadcast a stolen vehicle report, including a description of the suspect. A radio patrol unit spotted the suspect vehicle and an ensuing high speed chase ended in a local mobile home park. Waldmaer Rodriguez was arrested after he was observed running through the park. The owner of the car identified Rodriguez as the person he had seen take the car without authorization. Charged with grand larceny, Rodriguez’s first trial resulted in a deadlocked jury; however, on retrial he was convicted and sentenced to a term of years in the Nevada State Prison.

In this appeal he contends: (1) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and, (2) he did not have effective assistance of counsel. We reject both contentions.

*7841. On the date set for commencement of the second trial, appellant moved to dismiss the charge, alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial under a Nevada Statute and the Federal Constitution. A court may dismiss an information when a defendant has not been brought to trial within 60 days (1) of the filing of an information (NRS 178.556; State v. Craig, 87 Nev. 199, 484 P.2d 719 (1971)); or, (2) after a mistrial (Ex Parte Hansen, 79 Nev. 492, 387 P.2d 659 (1963)). However, failure to set a trial within 60 days is not per se equatable to a denial of a speedy trial. Petschauer v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 328, 512 P.2d 1325 (1973). Here, the second trial began 66 days after the mistrial. Rodriguez voiced no objection until the day of the trial. Under these circumstances, we deem the six-day delay insubstantial and unprejudicial. Cf. Maiorca v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 63, 482 P.2d 312 (1971); Anderson v. State, 86 Nev. 829, 477 P.2d 595 (1970). Similarly, we perceive no Sixth Amendment violation because appellant did not timely assert the right, the delay was insubstantial and no prejudice occurred.

2. In support of the contention that he was not competently represented, Rodriguez cites his trial counsel’s failure (1) to question what is subjectively described as “suggestive identification”; (2) to object to discharge of the first jury; and, (3) to raise a particular defense at trial. The claimed derelictions are patently frivolous and without merit. It appears that counsel’s actions reflected tactical decisions; and, the record shows that counsel did all that could be expected of him. Lundy v. Warden, 89 Nev. 419, 514 P.2d 212 (1973); Founts v. Warden, 89 Nev. 280, 511 P.2d 111 (1973).

Affirmed.
#### NORTH AMERICAN LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. DeANNE GINGRICH, Respondent.

No. 7718

July 23, 1975

538 P.2d 163

*Rose, Norwood, Edwards & Hunt, Ltd.,*and *Niels L. Pearson, Esq.,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Edward Weinstein, Esq.,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Insurance policies must be strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of the assured. Home Indem. Co. v. Desert Palace, Inc., 86 Nev. 234, 468 P.2d 19 (1970); Intercoast Mutual v. Andersen, 75 Nev. 457, 345 P.2d 762 (1959).

*492In the instant case, the district court determined that the life policy in question had not been effectively surrendered at the time of the insured’s death, and that it therefore was in full force and effect. This determination comported with the policy’s language, strictly construed, and was consistent with the way appellant’s agents construed the policy, before it became expedient to urge the courts to do otherwise.1

Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s determination that there remained no genuine issue of material fact, and that respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. NRCP 56; Moen v. Las Vegas Int’l Hotel, Inc., 90 Nev. 176, 521 P.2d 370 (1974); City of Las Vegas v. Cragin Industries, 86 Nev. 933, 478 P.2d 585 (1970).

Affirmed.

1

The policy contained the following provision: “Payments By The Company. All benefits under this Policy are payable at the Home Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota. At the time of such payment the Company may require the surrender of this Policy.”

When the insured indicated a desire to surrender his policy, appellant demanded its physical return, and a witnessed, fully completed surrender form. The deceased never complied with appellant’s demands, nor did appellant retreat from such demands, prior to his death.
#### EQUIPMENT CO. v. SMITH

No. 127 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 351.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 31 January 1977.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 

FORM 10-Q 

This combined Form 10-Q is separatelyfiled by Alliant Energy Corporation, Interstate Power and Light Company and WisconsinPower and Light Company. Information contained in the Form 10-Q relating to InterstatePower and Light Company and Wisconsin Power and Light Company is filed by such registranton its own behalf. Each of Interstate Power and Light Company and Wisconsin Power andLight Company makes no representation as to information relating to registrants other thanitself. 

Indicate by check mark whether theregistrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter periodthat the registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject tosuch filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ] No [     ]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00277

- CR

John Forrest LOWE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B10794

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 2, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LS/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR I A ME T KO , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. SOCI AL SE CURI TY A D M I N I S T R A T I O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17285 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 2 2 6 - BESR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da B r i a n E . S a ndova l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r i aM e tko appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng h e ra c tio n f

o rf a ilu r e to e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s u n d e rth e S o c ia l S e c u r ity 

# FI LED JAN 22 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSLS/ R es ear ch 2

A c t( “ S S A ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o , Ki ldar e v . Sae nz , 3 2 5 F. 3 d1 0 7 8 , 1 0 8 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl ud ed thati tl ac ked sub j ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on because M etko fa i l ed t o exh austher a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es before f ilin g th is a c tio n . Se e i d. at10 82 -86 (af fi rm i ng di sm i ss alfor l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on w he r e pl a i nt i f f s f a i l e d t o e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s unde rthe S S A ) . W e c o n s tru e th e d is m is s a l a s w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . See O ’G ui nn v. L ovelock C o rr. C tr. , 502 F . 3d 1056, 1063 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( c onc l udi ng tha tdi s m i s s a l w i thout p r e ju d ic e is p r o p e rw h e r e p la in tif f f a ile dto e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s ) . M e tko’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons a r e una va i l i ng. AF F I RME D.
Opinion filed February 25, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

No. 11-09-00234-CR

__________

 TERRANCE SCOTT ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 142nd District Court

 Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR31582

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court originally convicted Terrance Scott Anderson of retaliation and assessed his

punishment at confinement for 5 years and a $1,500 fine. The imposition ofthe confinement portion

of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years.

After a hearing on the State’s third amended motion to revoke, the trial court found the allegations

to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence.
2

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported

by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable

law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant

with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response

to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record,

and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise

appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 66. Black v. State,

217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.).

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

February 25, 2010

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.