alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Kari Stefansson, ChiefExecutive Officer, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of deCODE genetics, Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               [Intentionallyomitted*];

4.               [Intentionallyomitted*]; and

5.               [Intentionallyomitted*]
| Dated: August 14, 2006 |   | /s/ KARI STEFANSSON     |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Kari Stefansson         |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |   |                    |

 

* This paragraph isomitted because there has been no amendment of the matters referred to therein.

----
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. 67). Trial has been rescheduled 

for the month of August, 2012. Defendant Peralta shall file a waiver of speedy 

trial rights not later than June 18, 2012. 

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(7)(A) and (B), 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 August 14, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

Jury selection will take place on August 21, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. 
SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

U.S. District Judge

June 8, 2012

cc: Patrick Richard, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1339 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1339

To provide market loss assistance during fiscal year 2001 to owners and 
producers on farms who are eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 
  2001 under production flexibility contracts entered into under the 
                  Agricultural Market Transition Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

  Mr. Berry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide market loss assistance during fiscal year 2001 to owners and 
producers on farms who are eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 
  2001 under production flexibility contracts entered into under the 
                  Agricultural Market Transition Act.

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

SECTION 1. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use funds of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance in the form of a 
market loss assistance payment to owners and producers on a farm that 
are eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 2001 under a 
production flexibility contract for the farm under the Agricultural 
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
    (b) Amount and Manner.--In providing payments under this section, 
the Secretary shall--
            (1) use the same contract payment rates as are used under 
        section 802(b) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
        Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
        2000 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 106-78); and
            (2) provide the payments in a manner that is consistent 
        with section 802(c) of that Act.
    (c) Timing.--The Secretary shall make the payments required by this 
section not later than June 30, 2001.
    (d) Treatment of Direct Spending.--For purposes of section 252(e) 
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, all 
direct spending resulting from subsection (a) is designated by the 
Congress as an emergency requirement, subject to the additional 
requirement that the President also designate such direct spending as 
an emergency requirement under such section.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IMS Health Incorporated, et al.

v. Case No. 06-cv-280-PB

NH Attorney General

ORDER

The preliminary injunction hearing shall be consolidated

with the hearing on the merits. 

On or before September 12, 2006, the parties shall inform

the court as to whether they are prepared to stipulate as to the

content of the preliminary injunction hearing record. If a

stipulation cannot be reached as to the content of the record,

the October 19, 2006 preliminary injunction hearing will be

cancelled and a new hearing will be set for January 2007. If a

new hearing date is set for the preliminary injunction hearing,

the parties shall agree on and file, on or before September 19,

2006, a schedule for the expedited completion of discovery and

the designation of experts. 

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 32 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

This order is entered without prejudice to the plaintiffs’

right to seek a temporary restraining order. 

All pending motions other than the motion for preliminary

injunction are denied as moot in light of this order. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 6, 2006

cc: Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.

Patricia Acosta, Esq.

Thomas Julin, Esq.

Richard W. Head, Esq.

David Rienzo, Esq.

Charles R. A. Morse, Esq.

Donald B. Ayer, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 32 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sally PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50331.

D.C. No. CR-99-00083-DOC-24.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2002.*

Decided Jan. 8, 2003.

*246Before BEEZER, KOZINSKI and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Cervantes, in his wiretapped conversation with Fernandez, was recounting in part statements he had heard directly from Sally (single hearsay), and not simply repeating what he had learned indirectly from Aunt Flo (double hearsay). *See United States v. Murillo, 255*F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 948, 122 S.Ct. 1342, 152 L.Ed.2d 245 (2002). Having stated earlier that he intended to “talk to ... Sally,” Cervantes told Fernandez that “she just sends me her [greetings] from uh her and [her husband] and um, so it’s all to the good.... [S]he said that, uh, [alright], that she’ll see what she could do.” When all the statements are taken in context, the district court’s inference that the “she” in the relevant portion of the conversation refers to Sally and that the statements were made by her directly to Cervantes is not clearly erroneous. *United States v. Rahm,*993 F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.1993).

The district court also did not err in concluding that these single hearsay statements were admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Rochin’s and Torvisco’s testimony implicating Peters in the drug distribution scheme, coupled with the hearsay statements themselves suggesting the same involvement by Peters and Cervantes, are sufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy for the hearsay statements to be admitted under the co-conspirator exception. *See Bourjaily v. United States,*483 U.S. 171, 181, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); *United States v. Silverman,*861 F.2d 571, 577-79 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of tbis circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Zachary Eugene HALL, aka Zachary Eugene Muhammad, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50095.

D.C. No. CR-98-00569-WDK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Zachary Eugene Hall appeals from the revocation of probation and imposition of his sentence of 6 months imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hall’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the briefs and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Angeles ORTEGA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-70357.

INS Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously Ends this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Angeles Ortega-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and suspension of deportation. We lack jurisdiction to review Ortega-Gonzalez’ due process claims because she failed to raise them before the BIA. *See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that correctable procedural errors must be exhausted de*773spite general rule that constitutional claims need not be exhausted).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**KIP EDDINGER,**

**Appellee :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 64 MAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the Order of Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas at No.**  **CP-46-CR-0008857-2012 dated May 19,**

**2014**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, **this 31 st**  **day of August, 2015, the Order of the Court of Comm on** 

**Pleas is hereby** AFFIRMED **. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 20 15).**
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1996 1997 1998

1999

Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.p

1 Deposits .............................. 167 457 167 166 260 157 409 257 166 243 189

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 638,049 620,885 607,574 610,649 606,662 606,579 611,372 619,004 626,669 634,086 621,351

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 11,197 10,763 10,343 10,347 10,340 10,340 10,329 10,329 10,271 10,155 10,114

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 31, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James W. McCarthy

v. Civil No. 04-cv-477-JD

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

O R D E R

Previously, the court ruled that the New Hampshire wage laws

applied to James W. McCarthy’s claims, vacated the arbitration

award because of the panel’s manifest disregard of the governing

law, and remanded the case “to have McCarthy’s claim decided

under the New Hampshire wage laws through arbitration as provided

by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.” Order,

Jan. 28, 2005, at *8. McCarthy now has filed a motion to reopen

the case and a separate motion to vacate the second arbitration

award and for a second remand. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,

which is represented by counsel, has failed to respond to either

motion.

The second arbitration award denied McCarthy’s claims “in

their entirety” without making any findings or providing any

explanation. In a section titled “Panel’s Report,” the panel

wrote: “The Arbitrators fully considered all claims and

defenses, including the applicability of the New Hampshire Wage

Laws, which were heavily argued by both sides.” The panel’s

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JD Document 21 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 2
2

statement may be open to interpretation. Based upon McCarthy’s

arguments in support of his motion to vacate the award and remand

the case, it is at least plausible that the panel’s statement

means that the panel decided, once again, that the New Hampshire

wage laws do not apply here, in direct contravention of this

court’s January 28, 2005, order. In the absence of any response

from Citigroup, the court has only McCarthy’s version of the

arbitration proceedings to consider.

Therefore, Citigroup shall show cause on or before October

21, 2005, why the second arbitration award should not be vacated

and the case remanded a second time for arbitration.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to reopen

(document no. 19) is granted. Citigroup is ordered to show cause

on or before October 21, 2005, why the second arbitration award

in this case should not be vacated and the case remanded a second

time for arbitration.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 13, 2005

cc: W. Wright Danenbarger, Esquire

William A. Jacobson, Esquire

Shanna L. Pitts, Esquire

John R. Skelton, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JD Document 21 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-166-01-SM

Antron Hughes

ORDER

Re: Document No. 28, Motion to Appoint Counsel (re: Crack

Cocaine Amendment)

Ruling: Denied. Defendant, by letter, seeks to have his

sentence reduced based upon the United States Sentencing

Commission’s retroactive amendment of the “crack” cocaine guideline

(Amendments 706 and 711, effective March 3, 2008). Defendant’s

guideline sentencing range was based upon his career offender

status, and was not based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered (i.e. the retroactive “crack” amendment),

therefore his sentence cannot be reduced on that ground. See

United States v. Ayala-Pizarro, 551 F.3d 84 (1st cir. 2008); United

States v. Caraballo, 552 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008). The court notes

that defendant was sentenced well below the advisory guideline

range based on his motion for a variant non-guideline sentence, and

a further reduction would not be appropriate even if the

retroactive amendment applied here. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: February 25, 2009

cc: Antron Hughes, pro se

Bjorn Lange, Esq. 

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA 

Case 1:06-cr-00166-SM Document 29 Filed 02/25/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-204-01-SM

Van Hertel

O R D E R

Defendant Hertel’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 6). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2007 

trial period. Defendant Hertel shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than November 27, 2006. 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 30, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00204-SM Document 7 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 17, 2006

cc: Mark Sisti, Esq.

Jennifer Cole Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00204-SM Document 7 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1389 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1389

     To amend the Head Start Act to authorize the appropriation of 
                 $11,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. DeFazio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Head Start Act to authorize the appropriation of 
                 $11,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 639(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834(a)) is 
amended by striking ``such sums'' and all that follows through 
``2003'', and inserting ``$11,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such 
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003''.
                                 <all>
```