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



CERTIFICATION



I, Vernon H. Foersterling, Jr., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Integrated Security Systems, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  May 12, 2006

/s/ VERNON H. FOERSTERLING, JR.

Vernon H. Foersterling, Jr.,

President and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive and Financial Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2250

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a shorter recovery

period for the depreciation of certain restaurant buildings.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 20, 2000

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a shorter recovery period for the depreciation of certain

restaurant buildings.

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

3 SECTION 1. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF

4 RESTAURANT BUILDINGS.

5 (a) 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph

6 (E) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of

7 1986 (relating to 15-year property) is amended by striking

8 ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at

9 the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding

10 at the end the following new clause:
2

•S 2250 IS

1 ‘‘(iv) any section 1250 property which

2 is a retail restaurant facility or an im3 provement thereto.’’

4 (b) RETAIL RESTAURANT FACILITY.—Subsection (e)

5 of section 168 of such Code is amended by adding at the

6 end the following new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(6) RETAIL RESTAURANT FACILITY.—The

8 term ‘retail restaurant facility’ means any building

9 if—

10 ‘‘(A) more than 50 percent of the build11 ing’s square footage is devoted to preparation

12 of, and seating for on-premises consumption of,

13 prepared meals, and

14 ‘‘(B) the building is owned by—

15 ‘‘(i) the person operating the meal

16 preparation facility in such building, or

17 ‘‘(ii) a person who is related (within

18 the meaning of section 267(b) or

19 707(b)(1)) to the person described in

20 clause (i).’’

21 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in

22 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting

23 after the item relating to subparagraph (E)(iii) the fol24 lowing new item:

‘‘(E)(iv) ..................................................................................................... 20’’.
3

•S 2250 IS

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to retail restaurant buildings

3 placed in service after the date of the enactment of this

4 Act and to all improvements made after the date of enact5 ment.

Æ
Amendment to Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of May 13, 2009, by and between Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Regatta”), and Local Insight Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Consultant”). 
 RECITALS: 
 WHEREAS, LIMI and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe IX, L.P. (“WCAS”) entered into a Consulting Agreement dated as of January 3, 2007 (the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as of April 16, 2008, WCAS assigned to Regatta, and Regatta assumed, all
WCAS’s rights and obligations under the Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, Regatta and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter
set forth; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth
herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 ARTICLE I. 
 DEFINITIONS 
 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, each capitalized term used herein shall have the same meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement. 
 ARTICLE II. 
 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3

 2.1 A new Section 3(c) is hereby added to the Agreement, such Section to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “(c) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Consultant agrees to suspend invoicing for the amounts payable pursuant to Section 3(a),
effective as of January 1, 2009. The parties agree that: (i) Consultant may, at any time, re-commence invoicing for the amounts payable pursuant to Section 3(a) and (ii) in the event Consultant re-commences such invoicing, no
amounts will be invoiced or be payable with respect to any Services rendered during the period commencing January 1, 2009 and ending on the date such invoicing re-commences.” 







 ARTICLE III. 
 EFFECT 
 3.1 Except to the extent that this Amendment expressly modifies the Agreement, the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect. 
 3.2 This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, all of which will be considered one and the
same agreement and will become effective when counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party, it being understood that each party need not sign the same counterpart. Delivery of an executed signature page of
this Amendment by facsimile transmission or electronic photocopy (i.e., a “pdf”) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. 
 (Signature Page Follows) 
  

 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.

  

			
	 LOCAL INSIGHT REGATTA
 HOLDINGS,
INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/    JAMES STIRBIS

	Name:	 	James Stirbis
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	LOCAL INSIGHT MEDIA, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    JOHN S. FISCHER

	Name:	 	John S. Fischer
	Title:	 	General Counsel


  

 3
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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned  officers of Integrated Security Systems,  Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d),  as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and the  information  contained  in the  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.


November 19, 2004                         /s/ C. A. RUNDELL, JR.
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          C. A. Rundell, Jr.,
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Principal Executive and Financial
                                          Officer


November 19, 2004                         /s/ RICHARD B. POWELL
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Richard B. Powell
                                          Principal Accounting Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by section 906 has been
provided to Integrated Security Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Integrated
Security Systems,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.

The  foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to Form 10-QSB
pursuant  to  Item   601(b)(32)  of  Regulation  S-B  and  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB for  purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934, as amended,  and is not  incorporated  by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00175-CV

Joe Henderson

v.

Marilyn Kay Blalock

On appeal from the

149th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 78654-CV

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 3, 2017
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7192

ANTHONY G. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Parole

Board; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-81-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony G. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony G. Wright appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wright v.

Fahey, No. CA-05-81-1 (E.D. Va. July 6, 2005). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
consolidated balance sheet of Hooper Holmes, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 
31, 1997 and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for 
the period ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,415,696
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,810,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                   838,400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,495,785
<PP&E>                                      19,343,963
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,320,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,774,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,085,349
<BONDS>                                      1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       273,120
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,223,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,774,056
<SALES>                                     40,713,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,713,867
<CGS>                                       29,647,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,647,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,103,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               120,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,956,043
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,432,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,524,043
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,524,043
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Adjusted to reflect a two-for-one stock split effective August 22, 1997, and the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings per
share", which became effective in 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1778 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1778

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade Reservoir.

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

SECTION 1. EXCHANGES OF LAND EXCESS TO CASCADE RESERVOIR RECLAMATION 
              PROJECT.

    Section 5 of Public Law 86-92 (73 Stat. 219) is amended by striking 
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Land Exchanges.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange land of 
        either class described in subsection (a) for non-Federal land 
        of not less than approximately equal value, as determined by an 
        appraisal carried out in accordance with--
                    ``(A) the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
                Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
                4601 et seq.); and
                    ``(B) the publication entitled `Uniform Appraisal 
                Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions', as amended by 
                the Interagency Land Acquisition Conference in 
                consultation with the Department of Justice.
            ``(2) Equalization.--If the land exchanged under paragraph 
        (1) is not of equal value, the values shall be equalized by the 
        payment of funds by the Secretary or the grantor, as 
        appropriate, in an amount equal to the amount by which the 
        values of the land differ.''.

            Passed the Senate April 13, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1778

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade Reservoir.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00755

- CR

Ernest R. CEPEDA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR7864

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal

in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case “ is a plea

- bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal. ” It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court clerk

file a n elect ronic clerk ’ s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the

following documents:

1. All pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant ’ s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

-

judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the rep orter ’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1404

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Kevin J. Yale, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 6, 2007

Filed: February 7, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin J. Yale appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In a

brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Yale’s

262-month prison sentence, imposed upon consideration of an advisory Guidelines

range of 262-327 months, is too harsh in comparison to the sentences of his coconspirators.
-2-

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to grant Yale a

downward variance to accomplish sentencing parity, especially where, in opposing the

variance, the government had stated without objection that Yale’s case was

distinguished by an extensive criminal record and the existence of a weapon. See

United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876, 880 (8th Cir. 2006) (while unwarranted

sentencing disparities are to be avoided, district court evaluating potential disparity

must compare defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar

conduct; reversing downward variance where coconspirators had different criminal

history categories, role-related adjustments, drug quantities, and Guidelines ranges).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________