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

CERTIFICATION

I,
Rosemary A. Crane, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Form 10-K of Epocrates, Inc.;

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

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 31, 2011

/s/ ROSEMARY A. CRANE Rosemary A. Crane Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### STATE v. BAGLEY

No. 79 PC.

No. 37 (Spring Term).

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 171.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 December 1979.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 4, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01322-CV
JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. MILAS FRANKLIN, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-03664-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Francis Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal and render judgment.
The parties inform the Court that they have settled their differences . They ask that we vacate the
trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal. We grant the parties’ motion. We vacate the trial
court’s judgment signed on June 29, 2012 and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
42.1(a)(2).

121322F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

No. 05-12-01322-CV V.

MILAS FRANKLIN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-03664-D. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices O’Neill and Fillmore, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court signed on June 29, 2012 is VACATED and the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered June 4, 2013

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                       CFO CERTIFICATION

                                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                   18 U.S.C. SS 1350,

                                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Mentor On Call, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
for the period  ending  December  31, 2001,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edwin W. Austin, CFO
of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Edwin W. Austin, CFO
-------------------------
Edwin W. Austin, CFO
August 21, 2002
* 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 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-61090

Summary Calendar

 

FAIZ RASOOL,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72-021-932 

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Faiz Rasool, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this

court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”)

affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of

removal. While Rasool concedes that he is removable, he argues

that the IJ erred in denying his contested motion to terminate the

removal proceedings to permit him to pursue his application for

adjustment of status with the Immigration and Naturalization

Service. 
2

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review factual

findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo.

Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). “We

accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration

statutes unless the record reveals compelling evidence that the

BIA’s interpretation is incorrect.” Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299,

302 (5th Cir. 1997). While we normally only review the decision of

the BIA, when, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision

without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Id.

The BIA has consistently held that “so long as the enforcement

officials of the Service choose to initiate proceedings against an

alien and to prosecute those proceedings to a conclusion, the

immigration judge and the Board must order deportation if the

evidence supports a finding of deportability on the ground

charged.” In re Yazdani, 17 I. & N. Dec. 626, 630 (BIA 1981); see

also In re Singh, 21 I. & N. Dec. 427, 435 (BIA 1996); In re Wong,

13 I. & N. Dec. 701, 703 (BIA 1971). Rasool’s argument to the

contrary is without merit. As the IJ did not have discretionary

authority to terminate the removal proceedings against Rasool, he

did not err in denying Rasool’s motion to terminate the removal

proceedings. See Lopez-Telles v. INS, 564 F.2d 1302, 1304 (9th

Cir. 1977); Panova-Bohannan v. Ashcroft, 74 Fed. Appx. 424, 425-26

(5th Cir. 2003)(unpublished).

Rasool also argues that the IJ erred in denying his
G:\opin-sc\02-21355.opn.wpd 3

application for voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to

consider this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); See Eyoum v.

INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997).

Rasool’s petition for review is DENIED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL L. UNION,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv125-RH/WCS

WALTER A. McNEIL et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 16. No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. The motion for a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. 

The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on August 9, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-2 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 14 of 14
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ---------

                     SIENA HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
            (FORMERLY LOMAS FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES)

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Reorganized      Predecessor     Reorganized      Predecessor
                                                      Company          Company         Company          Company
                                                  ---------------- ---------------- ---------------  ---------------
                                                   Quarter Ended    Quarter Ended    Nine Months      Nine Months
                                                     March 31,        March 31,         Ended            Ended
                                                       1998             1997          March 31,        March 31,
                                                                                         1998             1997
                                                  ---------------- ---------------- ---------------  ---------------
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:
<S>                                                <C>                 <C>            <C>              <C>
Average common shares outstanding                           4,000                *           4,000                *

Net income (loss)                                 $           (10)               *  $           46                *

Earnings (loss) per common share:
Net income (loss)                                 $          0.00                *  $         0.01                *

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE - 
  ASSUMING DILUTION:

Average common shares outstanding                           4,000                *           4,000                *
Average common stock equivalent under SHI
     Nonqualified Stock Option Plan
                                                               93                *              33                *
                                                  ---------------- ---------------- ---------------  ---------------
                           TOTAL SHARES                     4,093                *           4,033                *
                                                  ================ ================ ===============  ===============

Net income (loss)                                 $           (10)               *  $           46                *

Earnings (loss) per common share - 
  assuming dilution:
Net income (loss)                                 $         (0.00)               *  $         0.01                *
</TABLE>


* Average shares outstanding and per share amount not meaningful due to 
  reorganization.
Case 1:07-cv-03558-LAK Document 3 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03558-LAK Document 3 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009055EN.01000101.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/1

---

(2009/C 55/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

Past publications

OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2011115EN.01000201.xml

| 13.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/2

---

Communication of the European Parliament concerning the European Citizens’ Prize — CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

2011/C 115/03

The Chancellery of the European Citizens’ Prize held its constituent meeting on 17 March with Mr Jerzy BUZEK, President of the European Parliament, in the chair.

At that meeting the following list of prize winners for 2010 was drawn up.

The prizes will be awarded at public award ceremonies held near the recipients’ respective places of residence, and will be presented by the President of the European Parliament, one of the Vice-Presidents or any other Member duly mandated by the President of the European Parliament.

CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

Candidature/Nomination

Candidature/Nomination

| — | Jugendhilfsorganisation Schüler Helfen Leben |
| --- | --- |

—

Jugendhilfsorganisation Schüler Helfen Leben

| — | Międzynarodowy Festiwal Filmów Młodego Widza Ale Kino! |
| --- | --- |

—

Międzynarodowy Festiwal Filmów Młodego Widza Ale Kino!

| — | Ing. Wolfgang NEUMANN |
| --- | --- |

—

Ing. Wolfgang NEUMANN

| — | Union européenne des étudiants juifs |
| --- | --- |

—

Union européenne des étudiants juifs

| — | Csaba BÖJTE |
| --- | --- |

—

Csaba BÖJTE

| — | Lothar CZOSSEK |
| --- | --- |

—

Lothar CZOSSEK

| — | Fate VELAJ |
| --- | --- |

—

Fate VELAJ

| — | Elżbieta LECH-GOTTHARD |
| --- | --- |

—

Elżbieta LECH-GOTTHARD

| — | Carlo PETRINI |
| --- | --- |

—

Carlo PETRINI

| — | Inicjatywa Wolna Białoruś |
| --- | --- |

—

Inicjatywa Wolna Białoruś

| — | Fundacja Świętego Mikołaja |
| --- | --- |

—

Fundacja Świętego Mikołaja

| — | Open Society Foundations |
| --- | --- |

—

Open Society Foundations

| — | Stowarzyszenie „Jeden Świat” |
| --- | --- |

—

Stowarzyszenie „Jeden Świat”

| — | Europ'age Saar-Lor-Lux e.V |
| --- | --- |

—

Europ'age Saar-Lor-Lux e.V

| — | Sermig-Servizio Missionario Giovani |
| --- | --- |

—

Sermig-Servizio Missionario Giovani

| — | Europees Grenslanden Vrouwenvoetbal Toernooi |
| --- | --- |

—

Europees Grenslanden Vrouwenvoetbal Toernooi

| — | Stowarzyszenie Lednica 2000 |
| --- | --- |

—

Stowarzyszenie Lednica 2000

| — | Chris DELICATA |
| --- | --- |

—

Chris DELICATA

| — | Enrico PIERI |
| --- | --- |

—

Enrico PIERI

| — | Jacques GROFFEN |
| --- | --- |

—

Jacques GROFFEN

| — | Beneluxliga handbal |
| --- | --- |

—

Beneluxliga handbal

| — | INΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΟΔΙΚΗΣ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑΣ «ΠΑΝΟΣ ΜΥΛΩΝΑΣ» |
| --- | --- |

—

INΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΟΔΙΚΗΣ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑΣ «ΠΑΝΟΣ ΜΥΛΩΝΑΣ»

| — | Smaranda ENACHE |
| --- | --- |

—

Smaranda ENACHE

| — | EYV 2011 Alliance |
| --- | --- |

—

EYV 2011 Alliance

| — | Fondazione Banco Alimentare |
| --- | --- |

—

Fondazione Banco Alimentare

| — | Polska Fundacja im. Roberta Schumana |
| --- | --- |

—

Polska Fundacja im. Roberta Schumana

| — | Zsuzsa FERGE |
| --- | --- |

—

Zsuzsa FERGE

| — | Hans BIENFAIT |
| --- | --- |

—

Hans BIENFAIT

| — | Marek SOŁTYS |
| --- | --- |

—

Marek SOŁTYS

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF KNOLOGY, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED COMBINED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999. THIS
INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,818,462
<SECURITIES>                                 6,069,461
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,983,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                   701,804
<INVENTORY>                                 21,769,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,966,314
<PP&E>                                     312,654,748
<DEPRECIATION>                              60,527,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             400,333,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,301,831
<BONDS>                                    312,284,208
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    480,355
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,442,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               400,333,810
<SALES>                                     66,720,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            66,629,408
<CGS>                                       26,964,519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              113,894,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,837,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          34,308,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (76,743,572)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (19,697,270)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (57,046,302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (57,046,302)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (11.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (11.45)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF KNOLOGY, INC.**

Knology Broadband, Inc. (Delaware)

Knology of Central Florida, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology Provider Solutions Group, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Alabama, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Augusta, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology ofCharleston, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Columbus, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Florida, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Georgia, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Huntsville, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology ofKnoxville, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of Montgomery, Inc. (Alabama) 

Knology of Nashville, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of South Carolina, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of South Dakota, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knologyof Tennessee, Inc. (Delaware) 

Globe Telecommunications, Inc. (Georgia) 

ITC Globe, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of the Valley, Inc. (Georgia) 

Valley Telephone Co., LLC (Alabama) 

PrairieWaveHoldings, Inc. (Delaware) 

PrairieWave Communications, Inc. (Delaware) 

Knology of the Plains, Inc (Delaware) 

Knology Community Telephone, Inc. (South Dakota)

Knology of the Black Hills, LLC (South Dakota) 

Black Hills Fiber Systems, Inc. (South Dakota) 

Knology Condominium Association, Inc. (SouthDakota) 

BHFC Publishing, LLC (Delaware) 

Knology Total Communications, Inc. (Alabama) 

Knology of the Wiregrass, Inc. (Alabama) 

Wiregrass Telcom, Inc. (Alabama) 

CommunicationsOne, Inc. (Alabama) 

Knology PCL, Inc. (Delaware)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CATHERINE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:10-CV-108-SPM/WCS

QUINCY CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the

Complaint (doc. 12) and Defendant’s Response in Opposition (doc. 13). Plaintiff has

also filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply to the Defendant’s Response (doc. 14). As

the Court finds that good cause exists to permit the amendment, it is hereby ORDERED

AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Plaintiff’s Motions (docs. 12, 14) are granted.

2. The Amended Complaint (doc. 12-1) is accepted as timely filed.

3. Discovery is reopened until December 30, 2010. The Parties are

permitted to depose additional witnesses during this time, and may redepose those witnesses previously deposed.

4. The deadline for dispositive motions is January 21, 2011.

5. In order that the Court not consider duplicative motions for summary
Page 2 of 2

judgment, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 15), filed

October 18, 2010, will be held in abeyance until after the close of

discovery. The Defendant will be permitted to supplement or amend it at

any time up to and including January 21, 2011. Plaintiff shall have until

February 4, 2011, to respond.

6. The Court shall enter a revised scheduling order setting forth a new date

and time for the pre-trial conference and trial.

DONE AND ORDERED this nineteenth day of October, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### STATE v. DAYE

No. 15 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 435.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 March 1972.
EXHIBIT 32.2


          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thornton J. Donaldson, the Chief Financial Officer of CanWest Petroleum
Corporation (f/k/a Uranium Power Corporation) (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2004 (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. 78m or 78o(d));
and

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


Dated: December 22, 2004

                                        By: /s/ Thornton J. Donaldson
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Name: Thornton J. Donaldson
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
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 IVT Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Deric Haddad  Chairman and Principal Executive Officer, as of  the period ending March 31, 2011, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








By: /s/ Deric Haddad


Dated:  May   19, 2011


(Chief Executive Officer