alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Triple-S Management Corporation; 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 officers 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 usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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: March 20, 2007By:  /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas     Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas    *President and Chief Executive Officer*
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:97

- cr - 00053

- PJM

- 1; 8:17

- cv - 00589

- PJM )

Submitted : May 23, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Damon Em anuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan , Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott se eks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standar d by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the d istrict court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85.
W e have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Lum PATTON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1971.

Earl Cornett, Hindman, for appellant.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., David E. Murrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PALMORE, Judge.

Lum Patton appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 30 days in jail and im*145posing a fine of $100 pursuant to a jury-verdict finding him guilty of selling alcoholic beverages in dry territory. KRS 242.230(1), 242.990(1). His contention is that the trial court erred to his prejudice in allowing the introduction of 12 cans of beer and a half pint of whiskey as a part of the Commonwealth’s evidence.

Two officers of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board testified that on the evening of July 15, 1970, at an old abandoned school house in Magoffin County they purchased 9 cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, 3 cans of Drewry’s beer or ale, and a half pint of whiskey from Patton for a total price of $6.50. Patton’s defense was an alibi. One of the officers, Delbert Ison, testified that he had kept these beverages in his possession since that time, and as a part of his testimony he introduced a box containing them. When the box was opened it was discovered that its contents were 11 cans of Pabst, one can of Drew-ry’s, and a half pint of liquor. On cross-examination Ison explained that he had kept the box in the basement of his home and that evidently his children had removed two cans of Drewry’s, so he had replaced the missing cans with two more cans of Pabst. Since he had not marked the cans bought from Patton he was unable to distinguish them from the two cans he had added to replace the missing cans of Drewry’s.

In the first place, we find nothing in the transcript to suggest that counsel for Patton either objected to the admission of these exhibits or moved to exclude them, but even if he had, we are of the opinion that their reception into evidence was neither erroneous nor prejudicial. Ison testified that the bottle of whiskey (which he had marked), the can of Drewry’s, and nine of the cans of Pabst were the same ones he had purchased from Patton. He explained the presence of two extra cans of Pabst and the absence of two cans of Drewry’s. That he could not pick out which two cans of the Pabst were the ones he had not received from Patton is not a vital circumstance. The jury had before it the information necessary to determine the integrity of the exhibits and to judge the truth and accuracy of Ison’s testimony. Cf. United States v. Gulley, 374 F.2d 55 (CCA 6, 1967).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Bailey hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, this Quarterly Report of PMC on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                   |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert L. Bailey                 
|                   |  |     |  | Robert L. Bailey                     
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139363 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139363 

 COA: 290027 

Isabella CC: 2007-001926-FH 

RODRICK LAVAR JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2009 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

Certification

 

The undersigned officer ofNatrol, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company'squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.  Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 
| Date:  |   | 11/14/2002 |   | Name:  | /s/ Dennis  R. Jolicoeur              |
|--------|--------|------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |       |   |   |                                  |
|   |   |       |   | Title: | Chief  Financial Oficer and Executive |
|   |   |       |   |   | Vice  President                       |

 

 

----
#### SPIELER v. SAFFER.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion,
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 649.com Inc.



|                                                                  |  |  |  |                     
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|                                                                  |  | 
|/s/ Ronald R. Shenkin                                             |  |  |  | Date: April 14, 2004
|                                                                  |  |  |  |                     
|Ronald R. Shenkin President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  |  |  |
#### HARRIS BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Albert RATLIFF and Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1973.

Harris Howard, Howard & Howard, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

Robert J. Greene, Perry & Greene, Paintsville, for appellees.

Memorandum Opinion by

Commissioner CATINNA,

Reversing.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     MARCH 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         934
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  70,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                   12,137
<INVENTORY>                                    53,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,238
<PP&E>                                         95,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                 36,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,002
<BONDS>                                        269,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (95,315)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,821
<SALES>                                        76,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               76,440
<CGS>                                          48,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  48,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               6,412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (112)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   46
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (85)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (85)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00
        




</TABLE>
No. 72-1145.

#### Newsome *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant

To 18 U.S.C. 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey H. Sakamoto,Vice President – Finance and Administration of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 (15  U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                      |
| 2)     |   | The information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company.     |

 

 
| Date:  | November 14, 2005 |                                               | /s/ Jeffrey H. Sakamoto |   |   |
|--------|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                   | Jeffrey H. Sakamoto                                |                    |
|   |                   | *Vice President-Finance &  Administraton* |                    |
|   |                   | *and Chief Financial Officer*                      |                    |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Palo Alto, California


                               September 19, 2000



Efficient Networks, Inc.
4849 Alpha Road
Dallas, TX 75244

 Re:    Registration Statement on Form S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

   We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-8 to be filed by you
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about September 19, 2000 (the
"Registration Statement") in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of an additional 100,000 shares of your
Common Stock reserved for issuance under the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(the "1999 ESPP"). As your legal counsel, we have examined the proceedings taken
and are familiar with the proceedings proposed to be taken by you in connection
with the sale and issuance of such Common Stock under the 1999 ESPP.

   It is our opinion that, when issued and sold in the respective manners
referred to in the Plan and pursuant to the agreements which accompany the Plan,
the Common Stock issued and sold thereby will be legally and validly issued,
fully paid and non-assessable.

   We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and further consent to the use of our name wherever appearing in the
Registration Statement, including any amendments thereto.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
                                    Professional Corporation

                                    /s/ Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Efficient Networks, Inc.:

     We consent to the inclusion of our report on the financial statements of
FlowPoint Corporation incorporated by reference herein, which report appears in
the Efficient Networks, Inc. Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration
No. 333-94289) declared effective by the Commission on February 2, 2000.

                                             KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
September 15, 2000
Petitions for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and 

Dissenting Opinions filed April 28, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00845-CV

NO. 14-19-00847-CV

IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC. D/B/A INSTAGRAM, 

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2018-69816, 2018-82214 

NO. 14-19-00886-CV

IN RE FACEBOOK INC. D/B/A INSTAGRAM, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-16262
2

MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

I respectfully dissent from these denials of mandamus and I urge the Texas 

Supreme Court to review these cases. Federal law grants Facebook immunity from 

suits such as these. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because Facebook has immunity, these

suits have no basis in law, and dismissal under Texas Rule of Procedure 91a is 

proper.

The Real Parties in Interest urge our court to adopt a construction of Section 

230 that has been adopted by only a few courts. The vast majority of the courts 

reviewing this law have adopted the arguments made by Facebook. The artful

pleading by the Real Parties in Interest should not prevail over the statute.

Fewer cases discuss the 2018 amendments to Section 230 known as the Fight 

Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (“FOSTA”). However, this exception to 

immunity—on its face—does not apply to a civil action in state court.

Because Facebook has federal statutory immunity from these suits, I 

respectfully dissent.

/s/ Tracy Christopher

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
Exhibit 12.1
 MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.
Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(In millions, except ratio data)
Years Ended
 Dec. 27,
    
    Dec. 29,
    
    Dec. 30,
    
    Dec. 31,
    
    Dec. 25,2008
    
    2007
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2004Income before taxes
    
    $
    1,790.8
    
    
    $
    1,503.3
    
    
    $
    1,011.8
    
    
    $
    952.9
    
    
    $
    806.3One-third of rents
    
    
    24.8
    
    
    
    20.6
    
    
    
    20.0
    
    
    
    18.1
    
    
    
    16.9Interest expense
    
    
    233.7
    
    
    
    134.2
    
    
    
    95.8
    
    
    
    73.9
    
    
    
    69.1Equity loss from affiliates
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    2.0
    
    
    
    3.6
    
    
    
    5.0Earnings
    
    $
    2,050.4
    
    
    $
    1,659.3
    
    
    $
    1,129.6
    
    
    $
    1,048.5
    
    
    $
    897.3One-third of rents
    
    $
    24.8
    
    
    $
    20.6
    
    
    $
    20.0
    
    
    $
    18.1
    
    
    $
    16.9Interest expense
    
    
    233.7
    
    
    
    134.2
    
    
    
    95.8
    
    
    
    73.9
    
    
    
    69.1Fixed charges
    
    $
    258.5
    
    
    $
    154.8
    
    
    $
    115.8
    
    
    $
    92.0
    
    
    $
    86.0Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)
    
    
    7.9
    
    
    
    10.7
    
    
    
    9.8
    
    
    
    11.4
    
    
    
    10.4
 
 (1)
    
    The ratio was calculated by dividing the sum of the fixed charges into the sum of
the earnings and fixed charges. In calculating this ratio, earnings include income before
income taxes and fixed charges. Fixed charges include interest expense and one-third of all
rent expense (considered representative of the interest factor).
EXHIBIT 1


   [LOGO]                    [ ] MetroPark               [ ] Phone: 732 906-3200
                                 99 Wood Avenue South
                                 Iselin, New Jersey 08830-0471



July 23, 1998


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4 of Amendment  No. 1 to the Form 8-K dated July 13,  1998, of
FOHP,  Inc. and are in  agreement  with the  statements  contained in the first,
second  and third  paragraphs  on page 2  therein.  We have no basis to agree or
disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein.



                                                 /s/Ernst & Young LLP
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Ernst & Young LLP





       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.