alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, R. Scot Sellers, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Archstone-Smith Operating Trust (the“registrant”). 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 presentedin this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles.  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of trustees (or persons performing the equivalentfunction);
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      BY: /s/ R. SCOT SELLERS       R. Scot Sellers
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 59

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

that no person born in the United States will be a United States

citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen, is lawfully in the

United States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time of the

birth.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2001

Mr. FOLEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide that no person born in the United

States will be a United States citizen unless a parent

is a United States citizen, is lawfully in the United

States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time

of the birth.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 59 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE —

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person born in the United States

6 after the date of the ratification of this article shall be

7 a citizen of the United States, or of any State, on account

8 of birth in the United States unless the mother or father

9 of the person is a citizen of the United States, is lawfully

10 in the United States, or has a lawful status under the im11 migration laws of the United States, at the time of the

12 birth.

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en14 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Case No. 05-cr-57-01-SM

Gordon Reid

ORDER

Re: Document No. 605, Motion for Enlargement of Time of

Filing Post Trial Motions and Motions for Reconsideration

Ruling: Once again, defendant asserts a familiar claim of

personal dissatisfaction with the time allotted him for research

and writing, and the scope of access to legal materials provided

him, while incarcerated (a familiar claim by this defendant).

Defendant has not described facts or circumstances that might rise

to the level of a constitutional deprivation of his right of access

to the courts, and seems to concede that he has had access to his

legal materials, the institution’s law library, and the court. In

addition, defendant has not plausibly shown any realistic adverse

impact on his ability to either file appropriate pleadings or

address sentencing issues, nor has he identified what issues he

seeks to raise that he has not been able to raise or develop,

beyond mentioning issues already considered and decided (e.g.

selective prosecution). Defendant has been afforded more than

ample opportunity to identify issues he wishes to raise and present

those issues in a reasonably timely manner. Further delay of the

proceedings in this case is not warranted. However, should

defendant wish to supplement the motions filed in response to the

schedule previously and firmly set by the court, or present

additional issues, he may do so orally or in writing on February 1,

2008, prior to the scheduled sentencing hearing. If additional

time is required for the government to respond, or if other

circumstances plainly require further delay at that time, the court

will grant appropriate relief. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: January 4, 2008

cc: Don Feith, AUSA

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 620 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 (Unaudited)
 Three Months EndedMarch 31,
    
    
    Twelve Months Ended December 31,2007(1)
    
    
    2006(1)
    
    
    2006(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    39,478
    
    
    $
    35,098
    
    
    $
    174,400
    
    
    $
    103,487
    
    
    $
    85,755
    
    
    $
    72,899
    
    
    $
    82,304Add:Interest expense
    
    
    67,293
    
    
    
    45,527
    
    
    
    220,123
    
    
    
    133,578
    
    
    
    101,653
    
    
    
    94,012
    
    
    
    92,964Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    106,771
    
    
    $
    80,625
    
    
    $
    394,523
    
    
    $
    237,065
    
    
    $
    187,408
    
    
    $
    166,911
    
    
    $
    175,268Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    67,293
    
    
    $
    45,527
    
    
    $
    220,123
    
    
    $
    133,578
    
    
    $
    101,653
    
    
    $
    94,012
    
    
    $
    92,964Capitalized interest
    
    
    12,887
    
    
    
    12,771
    
    
    
    51,808
    
    
    
    39,111
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377Total fixed charges
    
    $
    80,180
    
    
    $
    58,298
    
    
    $
    271,931
    
    
    $
    172,689
    
    
    $
    125,225
    
    
    $
    120,866
    
    
    $
    125,341Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
 
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods
presented.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1372
CAROLYN YVONNE MURPHY TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. WALTER TODD, Esq., in his official capacity as Assistant City Attorney and his individual capacity; DANA MARIE THYE, Esq., in her official capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her individual capacity; HUNTER P. SWANSON, Esq., in her official capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLES AUSTIN, in his official capacity as City Manager and his individual capacity; DONNIE BALZEIGLER, in his official capacity as Code Enforcement Officer and his individual capacity; CITY OF COLUMBIA, LARRY MCCALL, in his official capacity as Chief Code Enforcement Officer and his individual capacity. Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon Cooper, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting in part and declining in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissing her action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the South Carolina Torts Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Todd , No. 3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2008). 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
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

Board of Trustees and Shareholders
Security Capital Pacific Trust


Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements Nos. 33-86444, 33-78402, 33-71040, 33-44631, and
     33-25317

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 2, 1997 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 



Chicago, Illinois
May 13, 1997
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**

**Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedofficers of Rand Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

Dated: August 8, 2022 

 

/s/ Daniel P. Penberthy

Daniel P. Penberthy,

ChiefExecutive Officer and President

(Chief Executive Officer)

Dated: August 8, 2022 

 

/s/ Margaret W. Brechtel

Margaret W. Brechtel,

ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
**
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# \50H-W

COA # 07-13-00084-CR OFFENSE: DWI Emily KaySmirl v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Randall REVERSED AND COA DISPOSITION: REMANDED TRIAL COURT: County Court at Law No 1 DATE: 10/13/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2012-0017-1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Emily Kay Smirl v. The State ofTexas 

## £f-atr?fi Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: 011lit Ml? 

# JUDGE: /^ (jAA#tU CCA#: 

# jyo*-/? CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: ^ SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

p0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

138832

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138832 COA: 281856 Livingston CC: 05-015439-FH PHILLIP KEITH DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY

, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).

C AVANAGH

, J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration  

          - [TA-W-63,718]  

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 21, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a One-Stop office on behalf of workers of Martinrea, Heavy Stamping Division, Shelbyville, Kentucky.  

The Department determined that the petitioner was not a One-Stop operator or partner but rather a former worker. A petition filed by workers must be completed and signed by three affected workers. Accordingly, the petition is deemed invalid and the investigation under this petition is terminated.  

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of August, 2008  

Linda G. Poole,  

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.  

[FR Doc. E8-20342 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]  

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENE ORLANDO ALVARADO MORALES, AKA Rene Alvarado,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72008

Agency No. A072

- 293

- 181

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

S ubmitted January 16, 201 8 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Rene Orlando Alvarado Morales , a native and citizen of El Salvador

,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen

,

* 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

JAN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 72008

and we review de novo questions of law

. Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986

(9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarado Morales’ motion

to reopen as untimely, where he did not timely file the motion and failed to

demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing

deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (2); Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th

Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from

timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as the

petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances)

.

The record does not support Alvarado Morales’ contention that the BI A

failed to adequately explain its decision not to reopen sua sponte. See Najmabadi v.

Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on

every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006)

(petitioner d id not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record)

.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarado Morales’ remaining contentions

regarding the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte

.

See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has

jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited3 16

- 72008

purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional

error.”).

In light of our disp osition, we do not reach Alvarado Morales’ remaining

contentions regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of prior counsel or compliance

with the requirements of Matter of Lozada

, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are

not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Richard DeFrancesco

v. Civil No. 04-cv-324-SM

United States

O R D E R

 Petitioner’s “Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of

Fees and Affidavit” is denied without prejudice to refiling on

the form required by 1st Cir. R. 24(a)(1) (see enclosed form). 

Petitioner should pay particular attention to the requirement to

state his claims of entitlement to redress and his statement of

issues presented on appeal. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 9, 2005

cc: Richard DeFrancesco, pro se

 Peter E. Papps, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00324-SM Document 14 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 1
#### DESCANT v. HIGHTOWER.

No. 5639.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1938.

John R. Hunter & Son, of Alexandria, for appellant.

R. B. Sadler, Jr., of Alexandria, and J. L. Warren Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This- is a companion case to No. 5638, styled Bradshaw Watson v. Charles D. Hightower, 181 So. 612, decided by us this day.

The lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands, and for the reasons assigned, in our opinion, in case No. 5638, the judgment of the lower court is erroneous and it is reversed; and there is now judgment in favor of Gaston P. Descant and against Charles D. Hightower in the sum o'f $880.-00, with legal interest from judicial demand until paid.

The petitioner alleged that as a result of the accident, he was rendered unconscious, suffered severe lacerations of the right ear, lacerations of the neck, face and above the right eye, and a fracture of the second finger of the right hand. He itemizes his damage as follows:

> Medical and hospital fees.$ 80.00

> Damage to car. $ 50.00

> Pain and suffering. $1000.00

■ When plaintiff was taken to the hospital after the accident, he was in a semi-conscious condition and remained so for a day or two. He stayed in the hospital for nine days. The laceration of his forehead and over'the eye left a scar about three inches in length. A scar over the eye, about a half inch long was more of a puncture. His skull was fractured over the left eye. He was bleeding a great deal when taken to the hospital. There is apparently no permanent injury. This state of facts was testified to by Dr. Murrell. Dr. Wallace described ^plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

> “Mr. Descant, he had a badly lacerated, almost mutilated left ear, and he had a deep laceration of the left side of the neck, and he had several minor lacerations of the face, and he had a fracture of the third metacarpal, oblique fracture of the right hand.”

He treated plaintiff for a number of weeks. His injuries were very painful. His wounds required many stitches to be taken by the doctor. The doctor’s bill was $45.00. There is no permanent injury other than the scars.

Plaintiff also had bruised ligaments in his leg, which prevented him from walking for about six weeks. His hospital bill was $35.00.

The above facts are not contradicted. The medical and hospital fees have been proven and amount to $80.00. The damage to the car of $50.00 we think is likewise 'proved, and we are of the opinion that a sum of $750.00 for pain and suffering is sufficient to recompense plaintiff in this case.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the full *617sum of $880.00, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand until paid, and all costs of this suit; and that the judgment of the lower court is reversed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

 DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v.

 Case No. 04-cr-211-02-SM

Jose Peralta,

Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Peralta’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

for sixty (60) days is granted (document no. 63). Trial has been rescheduled for 

the month of June 2012. Defendant Peralta shall file a waiver of speedy trial 

rights not later than April 12, 2012. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance 

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance 

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would 

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the 

circumstances. 
Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for June 8, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

Jury selection will take place on June 19, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

U.S. District Judge

April 2, 2012

cc: Patrick Richard, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation