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

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael Burke, President and Director of Focus Affiliates, Inc.
certify that :

1  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Focus Affiliates,
   Inc.

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

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

4  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
   procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
   Registrant and I have:

a  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
   information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being
   prepared;

b  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
   Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c  presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the effectiveness
   of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
   Evaluation Date;

5  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's
   auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or
   persons performing the equivalent function);

a  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
   controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
   Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
   controls.


Dated : December 10, 2008         Signature :  /s/ Michael Burke
                                               --------------------------
                                                   Michael Burke
                                                   President and Director

<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, John R. Regazzi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Giga-tronics, Inc.;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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) 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) 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  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (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 information;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.Date: 6/14/07            /s/ JOHN R. REGAZZI         John R. Regazzi    Chief Executive Officer  
45
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Norman Brooks, Appellant, v Daniel A. Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[744 NYS2d 728]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 17, 2001 in Clinton Comity, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

While on parole, petitioner was found to be in possession of an altered razor attached to a toothbrush and charged with, *678inter alia, violating condition nine of his release which prohibited him from possessing deadly weapons or various dangerous instruments (see, 9 NYCRR 8003.2 [i]). At the subsequent parole revocation hearing, he pleaded guilty to possessing a dangerous instrument and his parole was revoked. Thereafter, he filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by Supreme Court.

On appeal, petitioner asserts that because Penal Law § 10.00 (13) defines a “dangerous instrument” as an instrument which “is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used” to cause serious injury or death, and he was not using or attempting to use the altered razor blade at the time it was recovered, he did not violate condition nine. We find this argument to be without merit since condition nine does not incorporate the definition of dangerous instrument from the Penal Law and, furthermore, it specifically proscribes possession of a “dangerous * * * razor.” Petitioner admitted possessing a toothbrush with a razor, a jailhouse type instrument which we find could only be characterized as a dangerous razor. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied the application.

Her cure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

Consolidated with:

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02137-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

WENDY J. CABREARA,

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases

(Motion) (#157) filed August 24, 2012. Having reviewed the Motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and this matter is consolidated with

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02137-MSK. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 169 Filed 08/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty shall preside over

both matters.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 169 Filed 08/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6936 

BRANDON CLARENCE JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNNAMED DEFENDANT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00236-jlk)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 30, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Clarence Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Clarence Jefferson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing, in part, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

complaint as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, denying relief on

those claims, and dismissing the complaint. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Jefferson has not made the requisite

showing. We further find that any claims for damages under § 1983

are frivolous.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

In connection with the annual report of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
Michael S. Ives, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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: March 28, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael S. Ives                  
|                     |  | Michael S. Ives,                     
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



82
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23663]



[[Page 58629]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before September 20, 2008. Pursuant to 
section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the 
significance of these properties under the National Register criteria 
for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the 
National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. 
NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National 
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 
8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or 
faxed comments should be submitted by October 22, 2008.

J. Paul Loether,
 Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic 
Landmarks Program.

ARIZONA

Cochise County

Chiricahua National Monument Historic Designed Landscape, (Historic 
Park Landscapes in National and State Parks MPS) 12856 E. Rhyolite 
Canyon Rd., Willcox, 08001020

COLORADO

Weld County

Clubhouse--Student Union, (New Deal Resources on Colorado's Eastern 
Plains MPS) Between 18th & 19th Sts., & 8th & 10th Aves., Greeley, 
08001021

LOUISIANA

Assumption Parish

LaBarre House, 4371 LA 1, Napoleonville, 08001019

MARYLAND

Montgomery County

Krieger, Seymour, House, 9739 Brigadoon Dr., Bethesda, 08001022

MISSOURI

Greene County

Ambassador Apartments, (Springfield MPS) 1235 E. Elm St., Springfield, 
08001023

Jasper County

Inter-State Grocer Company Building, (Historic Resources of Joplin, 
Missouri) 1027-1035 S. Main St., Joplin, 08001024

St. Louis Independent City

Farm and Home Savings and Loan Association, 1001 Locust St., St. Louis 
(Independent City), 08001025

WASHINGTON

Pierce County

McChord Field Historic District, McChord AFB, Tacoma, 08001026

    A request for removal has been made for the following resource:

SOUTH DAKOTA

McPherson County

Leola Post Office, 741 Sherman St., Leola, 05000627

[FR Doc. E8-23663 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           6,796
<SECURITIES>                                     7,010
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                       236
<INVENTORY>                                      5,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,094
<PP&E>                                           8,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,919
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,021
<SALES>                                         28,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,886
<CGS>                                           18,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (586)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,190
<INCOME-TAX>                                       546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         ISOMEDIX INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE FOR THE
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, 1994 AND 1993

Net income and common shares used in the calculation of earnings per share for
the three years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, were computed as
follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          1995           1994             1993
                                          ----           ----             ----
<S>                                     <C>            <C>              <C>
Net Income                              $7,299,505     $8,816,760       $7,974,893
                                        ==========     ==========       ==========
Weighted average number
  of common shares
  outstanding during the
  year                                   6,993,520      7,132,669        7,090,986

Add: Shares issuable upon
  the assumed exercise or
  conversion of options
  and warrants                             223,953        229,047          265,499
                                        ----------     ----------       ----------
Common Shares                            7,217,473      7,361,716        7,356,485
                                        ==========     ==========       ==========
Earnings per common share               $     1.01     $     1.20       $     1.08
                                        ==========     ==========       ==========
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V.

28 Ski Doo Alley, Freedom, NH

Civil No. 07-cv-397-JD

ORDER

Upon application of Telie Shannon, and finding that under 18 U .S.C. § 983(b)(2)(A) the

applicant i s financially unable to obtain representation by counsel in this case regarding real property

subject to forfeiture that is being used by the applicant as a primary residence, and on consent of the

Legal Services corporation that Attorney Kevin Sharkey may provide representation to the applicant

on her behalf, the court orders that pursuant to 18 U .S.C. § 983 the Legal Services Corporation shall

provide counsel to the applicant and that Attorney Kevin Sharkey shall be such counsel .

Furthermore, it is hereby ordered that any judgment for fees and costs for LSC pursuant to

18 U.S .C. § 983(b)(2)(B) shall be awarded to Attorney Kevin Sharkey or the Legal Services

Corporation subject to the submission of appropriate statements of such fees and costs and the

consent of the Legal Services Corporation .

Attorney Kevin Sharkey shall promptly file an appearance in this matter on behalf of Telie

Shannon.

SO ORDERED.

March 6, 2008 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Seth Aframe, Esq.

Telie Shannon

Kevin Sharkey, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00397-JD Document 9 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 1
# Order entered September 21, 2015

In The 

# Qeourt of**~peal~** 

# jfiftb**ilBi~trict** 

# of**'Cltexa~** 

# at**mana~**

No. 05-14-01381-CR

WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Appellant



# v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-81194-10

.**~ ~===='"---"'-"'"---=~---o-...o-·..o~--~"-·-·=-=--=-"---"-**  

# -**·---~----** 

# --**~-~-=--.=--=.~--=---o,._.**



# ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant's September 17, 2015 pro se motion to dismiss appellate

counsel. See Buntion 

# v. Harmon, 

# 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Sampson 

# v. State,



# 854 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no pet.): see also Martinez v. 

# Court of Appeals o('Cal..

Fourth Appellate 

# !Jist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000).



# RECEIVED \N

''(Jl\RT 0F

# ~DPU.LS, 5th 

# OIST.



# nr'T 

# n 5 

# ZOi5

'i·.J' "

# u~.c, 

# !V\ATZ



# ·:l_fR.\1< St\l 

# DISTRICT /s/ ADA BROWN



# JUSTICE([ourtofAppralsBtutridofWrxasatr!allasGeorgeL.AllenSr.CourtsBuilding600CommerceStreetSuite200Dallas,Texas75202'··.,;\.,,',1,:../IJ.'75202@.663;:!"'t'"l.;2:;:·PMt"'!)!,1:::NOT7'5eP::;;'4..,_J,,RETURNTOTO6tf{l9,.'2·;:r,_,i.,J,ASBC:75282663150,'H'll''jOc;'lX'!•,!l'11,,'';j';'•."')-•'i•!1•!<
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02372-CMA-KLM

K-BEECH, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Plaintiff’s

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudict (Doc. # 14), it is hereby

ORDERED that the Complaint and cause of action in this matter are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02372-CMA-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00506

- CV

City of Kyle, Texas , Appellant

v.
1200 S. Old Stagecoach Road, LLC , Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 19

- 1492 , THE HONORABLE SHERRI TIBBE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

T he City of Kyle , Texas has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal and this cause as

moot. We will grant the motion in part and dismiss this appeal. We deny the request that we

dismiss this cause entire ly.
Appell ee 1200 S. Old Stagecoach Road, LLC, filed this suit seeking declara tory , injunct ive, and mandamus relief concerning aspect s of Kyle ’ s annexation of cert ain real property
and subsequent acts and omissions regarding that real property ; Appellee also r equest ed

attorney ’ s fees incurred and cost s of court. Appellant specifically requested relief from Kyle ’ s

Ordinance No. 1010. See Kyle, Tex., Ordinance No. 1010 (Sept. 4, 2018). Kyle filed a plea to
the jurisdiction, then filed this interlocutory a ppeal of th e denial of that plea.
Kyle seeks dismissal of th is cau se as moot bec ause on June 6, 2023, it passed

Ordinance No. 12 68 which expressly repeal ed Ordi nance No. 1010 and disannex ed the real

property described in Ordinance No. 1010. See Kyle, Tex. , Ordi n ance No. 1268 (June 6, 20 23).2 Ky le conten ds that the repeal of the ordinance render s the case moot and that we must reverse
any order or judgment and dismiss the entire cause. See Heckman v. Willi amso n County ,
369 S.W.3d 137, 162 ( Tex. 2012). Kyl e ce rt i fied that it had tried but was unable to confer with
Appellee ’ s counsel regarding the mot ion. More than ten days have passed since Kyle filed its

moti on to dismiss , and Appellee has not filed a response to the motion.

We are p ersuaded that t he repeal o f Ord inance No. 1010 and the di sannexation of
the real property it affected hav e rendered Appellee ’ s substantive request for relief moot. We
grant the motion to dismiss this appeal and vacate the order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

H ow ever, the m o otin g of the dispute over the substantive requests for relief ma y or may not

have resolved Appellee ’ s requests for attorney ’ s fees

. We grant the motion to dismiss in part , vacate the order denying the plea to the
juri sdiction, and dismiss this appeal. We d eny the motion to dismiss the ent ire cause

. The

dismissa l of this interlocutory appeal r eturns power to the trial court to consider any remaining

issues and claims.

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice

Before C hief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

D ismissed

Filed: J u ly 1 4, 2023