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

I, Stephen L. Baum, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pacific
Enterprises;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this Quarterly 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 Quarterly 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 we 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 Quarterly Report is being
prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this Quarterly Report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this Quarterly 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 most recent 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 (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.


August 7, 2003

/S/ STEPHEN L. BAUM
Stephen L. Baum
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOWS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<CIK> 0000075527
<NAME> PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        2,777
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         91
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             793
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           217
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,175
<COMMON>                                         1,259
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                157
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         80
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               940
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       30
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,679
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    4,175
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,328
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                88
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,109
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,197
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            131
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  21
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     152
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            51
<NET-INCOME>                                       101
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          2
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       99
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           28
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             294
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0







</TABLE>
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.10.1



Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon Corporation ("Visteon") and each of the persons named below, to the Change in Control Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.10 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Visteon for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.




	
	
	Name

	Sunil K. Bilolikar

	Matthew M. Cole

	Brett D. Pynnonen

	Jerome J. Rouquet

	Markus J. Schupfner

	Kristin E. Trecker

	Robert R. Vallance
I, PAM ESTES

, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District

of the State of Texas, do hereby certify that Ben Samford and wife Bette Ann Samford, Cecil

Jackson and wife Michelle Jackson and Sammy Monk, Plaintiffs in the trial court secured an

extension of eighty-three (83) days in which to file Appellees’ Brief in the following numbered

and entitled cause:

Enbridge G & P (East Texas) L.P.

No. 12-13-00307-CV vs.

Ben Samford and wife Bette Ann Samford, Cecil Jackson and wife Michelle Jackson and

Sammy Monk

This certificate is made pursuant to Tex. Rev. Civ. State. Ann. art. 5069, 1.05 sec. 3(c)

(Vernon Supp. 1985) to assist the Clerk of the Trial Court in calculating the amount of postjudgment interest accrued.

WITNESS MY HAND and seal of said Court at Tyler, Texas, this 9th day of October

2015

, A.D.

Respectfully yours,

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:

______________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 99.01
                                  -------------

                            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 Paradigm Medical Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Heber C. Maughan,  Interim Chief Executive Officer 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/  Jeffrey F. Poore
---------------------
Jeffrey F. Poore
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis TILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-21022.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Travis Tillis appeals his conviction following a guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Tillis argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power because the regulated activity does not substantially affect inter*401state commerce. Alternatively, he argues that his indictment was defective for failing to allege that his specific offense substantially affected interstate commerce and that the factual basis for his plea was insufficient because the evidence established only that the firearm had traveled across state lines at some unspecified point in the past.

Tillis raises his arguments solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. As he acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. *See United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 1150, 122 S.Ct. 1113, 151 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2002); *United States v. Gresham,*118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); *United States v. Fitzhugh,*984 F.2d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *401published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7120** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DENNEVER LIVINGSTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 2:97

- cr - 00039

- HCM

- 41 )

Submitted : November 20 , 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dennever Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
De nnever Livingston appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to correct a clerical error . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Livingst on , No. 2:97

- cr - 00039

- HCM

- 41 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2012) . 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40685 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NOEL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-95-CV-26

- - - - - - - - - - May 21, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Noel Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 52254-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Rodriguez argues that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to object to the career-offender enhancement to Rodriguez’s drug-conspiracy sentence and to the presentence report’s consideration of a prior misdemeanor offense when determining Rodriguez’s criminal history category. The inapplicability of the 1990 Sentencing GuidelinesNo. 98-40685 -2- career-offender provision to Rodriguez’s drug-conspiracy conviction was not addressed by this circuit until 1994, three years after Rodriguez’s sentence. See United States v. Bellazerius , 24 F.3d 698, 701-02 (5th Cir. 1994). Rodriguez’s attorney was not ineffective for failing to anticipate new developments in the law. See Lucas v. Johnson , 132 F.3d 1069, 1078-79 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, given that his criminal history category would have been the same regardless of a successful objection to the consideration of Rodriguez’s prior misdemeanor offense, Rodriguez cannot show prejudice with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the presentence report’s consideration of his prior misdemeanor offense. See United States v. Seyfert , 67 F.3d 544, 548-49 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
#### CHRISTIE v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc.*

No. 14648.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 15, 1934.

M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, for appellant.

M. A, Woodruff, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

*

Rehearing denied February 12, 1934..

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her suit for damages for physical injuries against the New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

Plaintiff, Mrs. Christie, who was a passenger in a street car operated by the defendant company, alleges that as she was in the act of alighting from the ear at the comer of Franklin avenue and Clover streets, it suddenly started with the result that she was thrown to the ground and sustained the injuries which form the basis of her claim.

The defendant contends that the accident happened at the intersection of Franklin avenue and Lavender street, one city block beyond the point where plaintiff claims to have been injured, and that it was caused by the failure of Mrs. Christie to wait for the car to come to a complete stop before attempting to alight.

The issue of fact thus raised by the parties was decided adversely to the plaintiff by the court a qua, and, after a thorough examination of the record, we have come to the conclusion that the matter could not be otherwise determined. Beyond Mrs. Christie’s own statement there is nothing to sustain her contention, whereas a number of witnesses, including passengers in the car who were entirely disinterested, testified that the car stopped but once, at Lavender street, and did not start again until after the accident A motorman in a car which was closely following the car in which plaintiff was riding testified that he saw her alight from the moving car.

The evidence clearly preponderates in favor of defendant; consequently, and for the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7824
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD HUDSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-363-A, CA-95-338-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.George Lynde Richardson, Baileys Crossroads, Virginia, for Appellant. Nanette Louise Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion alleging that he was denied the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We note that neither the district court nor this court has jurisdiction to extend the appeal period beyond the time limits set forth in Fed. R. App. R. 4(b), and, in any event, Appellant waivedhis right to appeal his conviction and sentence in his plea agreement. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hudson , Nos. CR-91-363-A; CA-95- 338-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES E. CARR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-66, CA-97-916-2)

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Carr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* To the extent Carr appeals from the district court’s orders

entered on September 24, 1998, and July 19, 1998, we find no

reversible error.

2

PER CURIAM:

James E. Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Carr, Nos. CR-93-66; CA-97-916-2 (E.D. Va. July

11, 2002).* 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.

DISMISSED
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11380 and #11381]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Louisiana dated 08/15/2008. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         05/13/2008 through 05/15/2008. *Effective Date:*
                         08/15/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/14/2008. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/15/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Caddo. *Contiguous Counties:* Arkansas: Lafayette, Miller. Louisiana: Bossier, De Soto, Red River. Texas: Cass, Harrison, Marion, Panola. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11380 B and for economic injury is 11381 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: August 15, 2008. Jovita Carranza, Acting Administrator.


[FR Doc. E8-19368 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 3.1.1

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

     Protection One, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Protection One. Inc.
held on July 30, 1997, resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed
amendment of the certificate of incorporation of said corporation, declaring
said amendment to be advisable and directing that said amendment be considered
at the next annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation. The
resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows.

          NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the first paragraph of Article
     FOURTH of the Fifth Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Protection
     One, Inc. be amended and restated to read in full as follows:

               "The total number of shares of all classes of stock that the
          Corporation shall have the authority to issue is 155,000,000, of which
          150,000,000 shall be voting common stock, par value One Cent ($0.01)
          per share ("Common Stock"), and 5,000,000 shall be preferred stock,
          par value Ten Cents ($.10) per share ("Preferred Stock")."

     SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,
a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law
of the state of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as
required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

     THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Protection One, Inc. has caused this certificate
to be signed by John E.Mack, III, its authorized officer, this 24th day of
November, 1997.

                                       PROTECTION ONE, INC.

                                       By: /s/ John E. Mack III
                                          -----------------------
                                          John E. Mack III
                                          Executive Vice President
                                          Business Development
#### UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO. v. HARP et al.

No. 6508.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 30, 1942.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellant.

Lee & Lee, of Shreveport, and Henry W. Bethard, Jr., of Coushatta, for appellees.

DREW, Judge.

Both appellant and appellees have requested this Court to transfer this case to the Supreme Court for the reason the amount involved exceeds the jurisdiction of this Court. It clearly does and therefore the appeal is transferred to the Supreme Court.

The record is remanded to the lower Court and appellant is allowed sixty (60) days from the date this judgment becomes final to properly lodge the record in the Supreme Court of this State. If not done within the time allowed, the appeal shall be considered as dismissed.

TALIAFERRO and HAMITER, JJ., concur.