alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company;

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

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

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-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 report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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:  February 7, 2006

/s/  Thomas M. Patrick
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 quarter ended June 29, 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: August 8, 2008                             
|                                                 
|/s/ Mark Donegan                                 
|Mark Donegan Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2020 Workiva-->
<!--r:1e11612c-f4b5-4bed-85ba-2957ad01cf66,g:398fd368-fdbe-4cf5-8657-45289ea50159-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20201104" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20201104">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2019-01-31" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2019/dei-2019-01-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201104_cal.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/calculationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201104_def.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/definitionLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201104_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201104_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
#### Roger Scott et al., Appellants-Respondents, v John Manilla, as Building Inspector of the Town of Skaneateles, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: We conclude that there is no reasonable interpretation of the evidence that could support Supreme Court’s determination that petitioners’ new residence was "legitimately constructed”. It is undisputed that the residence substantially exceeded the square footage and cubical content of petitioners’ former residence, a prior nonconforming structure. Therefore, petitioners’ rebuilt residence violates section IV (A) of the Town of Skaneateles Zoning Ordinance which provides that "[a] nonconforming building which has been destroyed by any means beyond control of the owner or lessee may be restored provided the use thereof is the same as before and only if *902reconstructed with the same or less cubical content and with the same general layout of that of the original structure”. Petitioners assert that a former building inspector gave them oral permission to rebuild the new residence as it is presently constructed. The building inspector, however, lacked authority to permit construction of a building in contravention of the town’s Zoning Ordinance and "his issuance of the permit conferred no rights on petitioners” *(Matter of Rejman v Welch,*112 AD2d 795; *see also, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York,*71 NY2d 274). Moreover, it is settled that a municipality may not be estopped from enforcing its zoning laws either by the mistaken or erroneous issuance of a building permit or by laches *(see, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, supra,*at 282; *City of Yonkers v Rentways, Inc.,*304 NY 499, 505). Respondents are entitled to the relief sought in their fourth counterclaim insofar as they established that petitioners’ residence as reconstructed does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine an appropriate remedy to effectuate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

In all other respects the order and judgment appealed from should be affirmed. We add only that petitioners’ challenge to the validity of the Zoning Ordinance was previously found to be lacking in merit in our memorandum decision in *Matter of Scott v Manilla*(144 AD2d 1001). Therefore, petitioners are barred from relitigating this issue by application of the doctrine of res judicata. (Appeals from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.—art 78.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE SEC FORM OF WHICH
THIS EXHIBIT IS A PART AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                       711
<RECEIVABLES>                                      531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,261
<PP&E>                                           3,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,496
<BONDS>                                          2,410
<COMMON>                                           702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              194
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,624
<SALES>                                          1,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,257
<CGS>                                              972
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (18)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     63
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 50
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        48
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard T. Szymanski, Chief Financial Officer of Prime Hospitality Corp.
(the "registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(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 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 report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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
<PAGE>
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: August  13, 2003

                                    /s/ Richard T. Szymanski
                                    ------------------------
                                    Richard T. Szymanski
                                    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6806 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6806

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that bonds used to 
   finance professional stadiums are not treated as tax-exempt bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 2022

Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Ms. Speier, and Mr. Beyer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that bonds used to 
   finance professional stadiums are not treated as tax-exempt bonds.

    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 ``No Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. NO TAX-EXEMPT BONDS FOR PROFESSIONAL STADIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Professional stadium bond.--Any professional stadium 
        bond.''.
    (b) Professional Stadium Bond Defined.--Section 103(c) of such Code 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Professional stadium bond.--The term `professional 
        stadium bond' means any bond issued as part of an issue any 
        proceeds of which are used to finance or refinance capital 
        expenditures allocable to a facility (or appurtenant real 
        property) which, during at least 5 days during any calendar 
        year, is used as a stadium or arena for professional sports 
        exhibitions, games, or training.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of our report dated February 27, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Cincinnati Financial Corporation and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of Cincinnati Financial Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cincinnati Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2014.





No. 333-24817 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-103509 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-103511 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-126714 (on Form S-8), as amended


No. 333-178075 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-200437 (on Form S-3)








/S/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Cincinnati, Ohio


February 27, 2015
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the accompanying report on Form 10–K for the period ended
December 31, 2008 of EV Energy, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
E. Mercer, Chief Financial Officer of EV Management, LLC, the general partner of
EV Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  •
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and
 
 •
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.
   Date:
March 12, 2009
 /s/ MICHAEL E. MERCER
 Michael
E. Mercer
 Chief
Financial Officer of EV Management LLC,
 general
partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,
 general
partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    Paul J. EvansonPaul J. Evanson Principal Executive Officer




January 23, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID FLORENCE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

S. FRAUENHEIM, Correctional Officer, 

Pleasant Valley State Prison; R. RESER, 

Correctional Officer, Pleasant Valley State 

Prison, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15679 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01383-AWI-JDP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner David Florence appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First 

Amendment claims arising out of the confiscation of personal property. We have 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-15679 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Blankenhorn v. City of 

Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Florence’s First 

Amendment claims on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have 

been clear to every reasonable prison official that confiscating CDs with explicit 

lyrics pursuant to a policy that prohibited prisoners from possessing media that 

promoted gang activity, violence, and criminal activity was unlawful under the 

circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“Qualified 

immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established 

constitutional right.”); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 815 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A 

right is ‘clearly established’ when its contours are sufficiently defined, such that ‘a 

reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” 

(quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999))).

The district court properly dismissed Florence’s due process, access-tocourts, and retaliation claims in the original and amended complaints for failure to 

state a claim. See Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 

(9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 

(1984) (elements of a due process claim for property deprivation); Nev. Dep’t of 

Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of an access-tocourts claim); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a 
3 19-15679 

retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Florence’s motion 

for leave to amend to add previously dismissed claims as well as new claims 

because amendment would have been futile. See Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 

757-58 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review and factors to consider in 

denying a motion to amend). 

Florence’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.