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,
Michael M. Earley, certify that:
 
 1.
    
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Metropolitan Health
      Networks, Inc.;
 
 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 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
      annual report;
 
 3.
    
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual 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 annual 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:
 
 a)
    
    designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
      being prepared;
 
 b)
    
    evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
    
    disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.
 
 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 registrant’s Board of
      Directors:
 
 a)
    
    all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b)
    
    any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 ****Date: March 22, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Michael M.
    EarleyMichael M. EarleyChief
      Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          65,928
<SECURITIES>                                    43,146
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,623
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,302
<PP&E>                                         973,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                (273,785)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 896,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,343
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   896,293
<SALES>                                        110,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,321
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,039
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,756
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,756
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2008

To require the pre-release drug testing of Federal prisoners.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26, 2000

Mr. ASHCROFT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To require the pre-release drug testing of Federal prisoners.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY PRE-RELEASE DRUG TESTING OF

4 FEDERAL PRISONERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3624 of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing:

8 ‘‘(g) MANDATORY PRE-RELEASE DRUG TESTING.—

9 The Attorney General shall direct the Bureau of Prisons

10 to establish and implement a mandatory drug testing pro11 gram under which—
2

•S 2008 IS

1 ‘‘(1) each prisoner shall be required to submit

2 to a drug test for the use of a controlled substance

3 (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Sub4 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), which shall be admin5 istered by the Bureau of Prisons not less than 30

6 days and not more than 60 days prior to the sched7 uled date of release of that prisoner under this sec8 tion; and

9 ‘‘(2) if a prisoner tests positive for the use of

10 a controlled substance pursuant to a drug test ad11 ministered in accordance with paragraph (1)—

12 ‘‘(A) the Bureau of Prisons shall promptly

13 notify the Attorney General of the test results;

14 and

15 ‘‘(B) the Attorney General shall, not later

16 than the scheduled date of release of the pris17 oner under this section, issue an arrest warrant

18 for the prisoner, if the Attorney General has

19 reasonable cause to believe, based on the test

20 results, that the prisoner has violated section

21 1791 of this title, section 404 of the Controlled

22 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844), or any other

23 provision of Federal law.’’.

24 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

25 authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2000
3

•S 2008 IS

1 $2,000,000 to carry out section 3624(g) of title 18, United

2 States Code, as added by this section, which amount shall

3 be used by the Attorney General to establish an office

4 within the Department of Justice for the investigation and

5 prosecution of prisoners for whom an arrest warrant is

6 issued under section 3624(g)(2)(B)(i) of title 18, United

7 States Code, as added by this section.

Æ
#### Commonwealth, By, etc. v. Intersouthern Life Insurance Company, etc.

(Decided January 20, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, Second Division).

Statutes — Construction—Effect of on Subsequent Cases. — When a statute of the State has been construed by the Court of Appeals, such construction is conclusive in all subsequent cases to which the provisions construed must be applied.

MATT J. I-IODT and A. SCOTT BULLITT for appellants.

BENNETT H.' YOUNG and MARION RIPY for appellees.

*229OpiniON op the Court by

Judge Settle

Reversing.

This appeal is prosecuted by a revenue agent, in the name of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, dismissing without prejudice, and at the cost of the relator, this action, which was- brought against appellee for the purpose of recovering taxes on property alleged to have been omitted from assessment. In the opinion of the circuit court the dismissal of the action was authorized by Chapter 115, Artcle 2, Section 5, page 396, of the acts of 1912, because of the failure of the revenue agent to prosecute it with due diligence.

It is insisted for the appellant, and not denied by counsel for appellee, that the judgment is erroneous. In view of the construction given the act, *supra,*by us in Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., 153 Ky., 116, decided since the judgment was rendered in the instant case, this contention must be sustained; and in the case of Commonwealth of Kentucky, by, etc., v. Standard Oil Co. of Ky., decided January 14, 1915, to be reported in 162 Ky., 149, a case on all-fours with the one under consideration, we found it necessary, under the ruling in Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., *supra,*to reverse a similar judgment.

For the reasons indicated, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for proceedings in conformity with the opinion in the Ewald case.
Exhibit 10.50

LOGO

Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                           
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                            
|      | 
|From: |  | Elizabeth A. Whayland, VP of Finance & Corporate Secretary
|      | 
|Date: |  | February 1, 2005                                          
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated May 20, 2002      

I, Elizabeth A. Whayland, (the Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement)
with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (the Company), on or about May 20, 2002, and subsequently signed an Addendum to the Agreement on October 31, 2003. Exhibit A, Item 1) of the original Agreement provides that the
Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the January 25, 2005, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors, the Executives 2005 base salary will be adjusted to $187,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments.

Unless explicitly
changed in the Addendum dated October 31, 2003, all other terms of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/ Elizabeth A. Whayland
|Elizabeth A. Whayland    
|                         
|/s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg 
|Jonathan M. Rothberg
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3 - 1502 Lower Tribunal No s . 20 17 - C F - 013169 - A , 2017 - CF - 013162 - A , 2017 - CF - 013165 - A , 2017 - CF - 013167 - A , and 2017 - CF - 012565 - A

_____________________________ D UANE D ARRELL J ORDAN , Appellant , v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee .

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County . Patricia L. St r owbridge , Judge. July 16, 2024 PER CURIAM . AFFIRMED . NARDELLA and GANNAM , JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, c oncur. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10985]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 4, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Commercial Bancshares Corporation, Frontenac, Missouri; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 25 percent or more of the 
voting shares of Centrust Financial, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Centrust Bank, N.A., both of Northbrook, 
Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Specialty Bancor, Inc.; to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Community State Bank, 
both of Austin, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 5, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-10985 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/8/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

ORAN L. JONES, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 95-6289

) (D.C. No. CIV-95-810-M)

FRANK KEATING, STATE OF OKLAHOMA,) (W.D. Oklahoma)

OKLAHOMA PARDON AND PAROLE )

BOARD, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.
2

Petitioner Oran L. Jones, an Oklahoma state prisoner currently incarcerated at the

Colorado Correctional Center, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking monetary

relief, alleging that Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole

Board, and the State of Oklahoma violated his constitutional rights. Petitioner asserts that

Governor Keating’s denial of parole from his life sentence violated petitioner’s equal

protection rights, his due process rights, and an asserted liberty interest in parole. He also

attacks Governor Keating’s jurisdiction to refuse the 1994 parole recommendation by the

Pardon and Parole Board because former Governor Walters was still in office when the

Board made the recommendation for parole. Finally, petitioner asserts that the Board

should be given sole authority to grant or deny parole.

The district court referred the case to the magistrate judge for initial proceedings

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint

be dismissed. The district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the

complaint.

We have reviewed the record and petitioner’s brief on appeal. We are satisfied

that the magistrate judge properly analyzed the facts and the law and we AFFIRM for

substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation of

June 22, 1995, adopted by the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

James K. Logan, Circuit Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        ENERGY EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES

             (formerly known as Pinnacle Oil International, Inc.)

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the inclusion and use of our report dated February 18, 2000
(except for note 18 which is dated April 4, 2000) with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Energy Exploration Technologies (formerly
known as Pinnacle Oil International, Inc.) in that corporation's Annual Report
on Form 10-K (Amendment No.1) for its fiscal year ended December 31, 1999.

We further consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
February 18, 2000 (except for note 18 which is dated April 4, 2000) with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Energy Exploration Technologies in
that corporation's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-89251).

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta
(October 4, 1912.)

#### STATE, Respondent, v. W. F. BURGY, Appellant.

[126 Pac. 779.]

Appeal — Service op Transcript.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Under the statutes of the state, the attorney general of the state is the attorney for the state on an appeal in a criminal case, and the state is the adverse party, and the brief and transcript on such appeal must be served upon the attorney general as required by the statutes and the rules of this court, and upon failure to make such service the appeal will be dismissed.

*587APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. C. 0. Stockslager, Judge.

An appeal from a judgment of conviction for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor.

Appeal dismissed on motion.

Guthrie & Larsen, for Appellant.

D. C. McDougall, Attorney General, 0. M. Van Duyn and J. H. Peterson, Assistants to the Attorney General, for Respondent.

Counsel file no briefs.

STEWART, C. J.

The appellant in this case was tried upon an information charging him with the commission of various crimes in violation of the liquor laws of the state. He was tried upon this information and convicted by a jury upon six counts of the information, and a judgment rendered against him fixing his punishment at imprisonment in the county jail of Twin Falls county for the term of six months, and to pay a fine of $500, and costs of prosecution. This appeal is from the judgment.

A motion was made by the attorney general that the appeal in said cause be dismissed upon the ground that no copy of the transcript has been served by the appellant upon the respondent or its attorney, D. C. McDougall, attorney general. A hearing of this motion was set, and counsel on the respective sides were fully notified of the same. The attorney general appeared and cited the case of *State v. Miles,*11 Ida. 784, 83 Pac. 697, in support of the motion.

Counsel for appellant has failed to appear or show any excuse for the alleged failure of counsel for appellant as specified in the motion.

The rule is clearly stated in the case of *State v. Miles, supra,*and counsel should h.ave complied with the statute and the rules of this court. The motion is well founded, and must be sustained. The appeal is dismissed.

Ailshie and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 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 Amistar Corporation ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Stuart C. Baker
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 19
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  May 5, 2005

                                        By: /s/ Stuart C. Baker
                                            -------------------------------
                                            Name: Stuart C. Baker
                                            Title: President


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amistar Corporation ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Gregory D. Leiser
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  May 5, 2005

                                        By: /s/ Gregory D. Leiser
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Gregory D. Leiser
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6235** 

NATHANIEL LEKAI HART , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BOBBY SHEARIN , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell , III, District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv
- 02477

- GLR )

Submitted : October 14, 2016 Decided: October 25, 2016

Before DUNCAN , KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Nathaniel Lekai Hart , Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

Weber, Assistant Attorney General , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Lekai Hart appeals the district court ’ s order granting Bobby Shearin’s motion for summary judgment and denying

relief on Hart’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Har t v.
Shearin , No. 1:14

- cv
- 02477

- GLR (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED