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



CERTIFICATION



I, Eugene Malobrodsky, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC.;



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;



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;



The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 our 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; and



The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  April 14, 2008



/s/Eugene Malobrodsky



Eugene Malobrodsky

Principal Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending May 3, 2008, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Tod A. Nestor, Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
|   | (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 results of  operations of the Company. |

 

 
| /s/ Tod A. Nestor                                 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Tod A. Nestor                                     |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                              |
| June 10, 2008                                |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMAZING STEWART,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

L. BROWN; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15178

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01093-LJO-JLT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Amazing Stewart appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. We have jurisdiction

FILED

AUG 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821

(9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Stewart failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies because Stewart did not notify prison officials as to the

nature of the wrong underlying his failure-to-protect claim in a timely manner. See

id. at 818, 821-24 (describing standard for proper exhaustion and explaining that

an inmate’s grievance must comply with time limits and provide enough

information to alert prison officials to the nature of the wrong for which redress is

sought); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievance must

give sufficient notice of claim).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-15178
#### Rufus P. VOORHIES et ux., In Behalf of Minor Child, Vernon Voorhies, v. TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD CO. et al.

No. 2325.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1942.

A. Wilmot Dalferes, of Lafayette, for appellants.

James J. Martin and E. L. Guidry, both of St. Martinville, for appellees.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Adrien Thibodeaux et al. v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company et al., 6 So.2d 224, this day handed down, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Food and Nutrition Service 

          - 7 CFR Part 246 
          - [FNS-2006-0037] 
          - RIN 0584-AD77 

# AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Interim rule; notice of approval of Information Collection Request (ICR). 

# SUMMARY:

The interim rule entitled Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages was published on December 6, 2007. The Office of Management and Budget cleared the associated information collection requirements (ICR) on December 7, 2007. This document announces approval of the ICR. 

# DATES:

                        The ICR associated with the interim rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 6, 2007, at 72 FR 68966, was approved by OMB on December 7, 2007, under OMB Control Number 0584-0545.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Debra Whitford, Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 528, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2746, OR                         *Debbie.Whitford@fns.usda.gov.*

Dated: January 29, 2008. 

Gloria Gutierrez, 

Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.

 [FR Doc. E8-2030 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Portec, Inc.
1998 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           47168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5187
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 56336
<PP&E>                                            7813
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   63142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8158
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4456
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     63142
<SALES>                                           8250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8885
<CGS>                                             5079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1478
<INCOME-TAX>                                       591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                887
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       887
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6741 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6741

  To prohibit Federal funds from being used to operate or control an 
    injection center in violation of section 416 of the Controlled 
  Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly referred to as the ``Crack 
               House Statute''), and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2022

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees 
    on the Judiciary, and Oversight and Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit Federal funds from being used to operate or control an 
    injection center in violation of section 416 of the Controlled 
  Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly referred to as the ``Crack 
               House Statute''), and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Crack is Whack Act''.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR UNLAWFUL INJECTION CENTERS OR PURCHASE OF 
              DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.

    No Federal funds may be--
            (1) used by any Federal agency to operate or control, or to 
        pay the salaries of officers and employees of such an agency to 
        operate or control, an injection center in violation of section 
        416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly 
        referred to as the ``Crack House Statute'');
            (2) made available to any State, local, Tribal, or private 
        entity that operates or controls such an injection center; or
            (3) used by any Federal agency to purchase or provide any 
        drug paraphernalia (as defined in section 863 of title 18, 
        United States Code), directly or indirectly through the award 
        of grants or other assistance.
                                 <all>
```
188 La. 874

#### Wardy DANIELS v. Ernest F. McGRAW.

No. 34306.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 10, 1938.

Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Snellings, of Monroe, and Bramlette & Bramlette, of Woodville, Miss., for appellant.

Carroll Buck, of Amite, for appellees.

ROGERS, Justice.

The issues in this case are identical with the issues in the case of Natalbany Lumber Company, Ltd., v. Ernest F. McGraw, 178 So. 377, with which it was consolidated for trial in the district court and for hearing in this court.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day handed down in the case of the Natalbany Lumber Co., Ltd., v. Ernest F. McGraw, 178 So. 377, of the docket of this court, the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., absent
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-3012

___________________________ 

Jane Doe

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Anoka County; James Stuart, the Anoka County Sheriff in his official capacity; 

Detective Larry Johnson

 Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________ 

Submitted: November 8, 2023

Filed: February 26, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Jane Doe appeals the district court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings 

to defendants, Anoka County, Minnesota, Sheriff James Stuart, and former Detective 

Larry Johnson, which held she lacked standing in her lawsuit regarding Anoka 

County’s alleged failure to test hundreds of rape kits, including her own. Having 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand. 
-2- 

“We review de novo a grant of ‘judgment on the pleadings.’” Henson v. 

Union Pac. R.R. Co., 3 F.4th 1075, 1080 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). At this 

stage, we take the facts alleged by Doe as true and grant all reasonable inferences in 

her favor. Id. 

While the district court largely characterized Doe’s Equal Protection claim as 

a failure to prosecute her assault, and therefore found she lacked standing, see Linda 

R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973), we understand her claim to be based 

on the Defendants’ alleged failure to timely investigate the crime of sexual assault 

due to an alleged discriminatory animus against women and girls. 

After the parties filed their briefs, we decided Pratt v. Helms, 73 F.4th 592 

(8th Cir. 2023). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Defendants

submitted a letter explaining that Pratt supported affirmance of the district court’s 

order. See City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007) 

(“[S]tanding is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching the 

merits of a suit.”). Doe filed a Rule 28(j) letter explaining that Pratt was inapposite. 

The case was subsequently submitted on the briefs.

The parties dispute whether Pratt controls the outcome of this case. 

Accordingly, we find that it would be appropriate to reverse the grant of judgment 

on the pleadings and remand to the district court to consider Doe’s complaint in light 

of Pratt. 

 We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________
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

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal period ended September 28, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Donegan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



|(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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 7, 2008                           
|                                                 
|/s/ Mark Donegan                                 
|Mark Donegan Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### STANDARD GIN & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAKER-LAWHON & FORD, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 5741.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1939.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1939.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied May 1, 1939.

Sholars & Gunby .and G. Allen Kimball, all of Monroe, for appellants.

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

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion of the case of Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., et al., 188 So. 416, this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from in this cause is affirmed.
Exhibit 6(a) 11  
                                                            ---------------



                                     PORTEC, INC.
                                     ------------

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                      ------------------------------------------


                           Three Months                       Six Months  
                          Ended June 30,                    Ended June 30, 
                       -------------------               -------------------


                        1997         1996                 1997         1996  
                       ------       ------               ------       ------  

     Average Shares
      Outstanding     4,534,251    4,582,973            4,517,682    4,575,590

     Net Income      $1,542,000   $1,921,000           $2,323,000   $3,894,000

     Per Share
      Amount           $    .34     $    .42             $    .51     $    .85
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 1999 and the consolidated statement of
income for the six months ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           36,447
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  557,066
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                          44,065
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         31,952
<OTHER-SE>                                      422,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    557,066
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 48,167
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  38,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                      9,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     29,316
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.57



</TABLE>
#### Angelo Guerra, Plaintiff, *v.*Richard G. Krueger Corp., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

April 4, 1956.

*Alvin Miller*for plaintiff.

*Martin C. Greene*for defendant.

*697Matthew M. Levy, J.

Although not objecting to arbitration as such, the plaintiff opposes the stay applied for by the defendant solely because the defendant (while seeking the stay of the action at law) has not requested or consented to the arbitration.

The contention is without merit. It is apparent that the plaintiff sues upon and is bound by the terms of the collective agreement. It provides for arbitration. Having contractually selected such a tribunal, the parties are relegated to it. If both parties desire to arbitrate, they may do so by consent. If not, and the plaintiff is still aggrieved, he himself may institute arbitration proceedings in accordance with the terms of the agreement. He cannot compel the defendant to set the arbitration machinery in motion.

Accordingly, the application by the defendant for an order staying this action and all proceedings therein until arbitration be had between the parties is granted (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1451).