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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Umang Gupta, certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Keynote Systems, Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)  Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

a)  All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:    December 29, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          20,204
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,782
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     72,641
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        687,752
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 827,275
<DEPOSITS>                                     615,586
<SHORT-TERM>                                    42,712
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,668
<LONG-TERM>                                     79,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 827,275
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,766
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,906
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   546
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                39,218
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              17,976
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,602
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,640
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      414
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,617
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.57
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,447
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,174
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,251
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       46
<RECOVERIES>                                        65
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,024
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,760
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,264
        

</TABLE>
#### Ami B. ESKANOS, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, Appellee.

No. 3D11-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 15, 2011.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 2011.

Danny E. Eskanos, Palm Harbor, for appellants.

Akerman Senterfitt, and Kimberly A. Leary and William Heller, Ft. Lauderdale, and Nancy M. Wallace, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.

SHEPHERD, J.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

On April 25, 2011, this court ordered Appellants, Ami B. Eskanos, Barry B. Es-kanos, and Eskanos Enterprises, to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions against them and their counsel pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2011). Appellants and their counsel timely filed a joint response.

*737Upon consideration of the response, and finding the response to be insufficient, this court awards, as a sanction, a reasonable attorney fee to Appellee for the defense of the appeal, to be assessed against Appellants and their counsel, to be paid in equal amounts by Appellants and their counsel, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statute (2011) (stating an award of reasonable attorney fees is to be paid to the prevailing party “in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney”). The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
* Judge Ervin participated in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7761

ROBERT PATTERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-3493-DKC) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 20, 1999 Before ERVIN, * MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Lawrence Gitomer, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Patterson v. Warden, Maryland House of Corr., No. CA-98-3493-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 30, 1998). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Pehong
      Chen, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BroadVision, Inc.;




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




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




4. The
      registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
      and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
      Act
      Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




a)
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation; and




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




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




a)
      All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and




b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.




Date: November
      05, 2007


*/s/
                Pehong Chen*Pehong
                Chen*Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00829-CV

Antonio SEPEDA,

Appellant

v.

Amy C. SEPEDA,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-17885

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2014

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

PER CURIAM
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. A. Hewson.

(No. 2242.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Ballinger, Mott & Terry, for appellant.

Wheeler & Rhodes, for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 248. *Damages for being sued not recoverable unless, etc.; plea in reconvention for such damages does not confer jurisdiction; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant to recover $19.50 damages, the alleged value of a beef steer killed by appellant’s ’ train. The suit was brought in justice’s court. Appellee, among other matters, pleaded in reconvention, claiming $25 actual and $80 exemplary 'damages, upon the alleged ground that the suit was instituted without probable cause, and with intent to vex, harass and annoy it. Appellee recovered judgment in justice’s court for the amount sued for by him, from which judgment appellant appealed to the county court. In the latter court appellee excepted to appellant’s plea in reconvention upon the grounds (1) that it presents no cause of action; (2) that it appears upon its face it is pleaded for the improper purpose of giving the county court appellate jurisdiction of the cause. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in the county court to entertain the same. The said exceptions to the plea in reconvention and the motion to dismiss were sustained, and the appeal was dismissed. *Held:*There is no error in the judgment of the county court. *304“The institution of a civil action by one in his own right for the purpose of enforcing a claim, whether that claim be real or unfounded, affords no cause of action against the party suing, unless by abuse of the process the person or property of the defendant be seized, or in some manner injuriously affected.” [Johnson v. King, 64.Tex. 226.] The plea in reconvention showed no valid cause of action for damages and was properly stricken out. It did not confer appellate jurisdiction of the cause upon the county court, and without it the county court did not have such jurisdiction, the amount of the judgment and the amount in controversy each being less than $20, and the appeal, therefore, was properly dismissed.

March 3, 1887.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                               NOTIFY CORPORATION
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           YEAR ENDED
                                                          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                     ------------------------
                                                        1996         1997
                                                     -----------  -----------
<S>                                                  <C>          <C>
Net loss............................................ $(1,657,219) $(1,382,910)
                                                     ===========  ===========
Weighted average common shares outstanding (1)......     237,934      568,932
Common equivalent shares from issuances of warrants
 and common stock during the twelve month period
 prior to the Company's proposed initial public
 offering (1).......................................     190,830          --
                                                     -----------  -----------
Shares used in computing net loss per share.........     428,764      568,932
                                                     -----------  -----------
Net loss per share.................................. $     (3.87) $     (2.43)
                                                     ===========  ===========
Convertible preferred stock issued more than twelve
 months prior to the proposed initial public
 offering (1).......................................     352,542      332,270
                                                     -----------  -----------
Pro forma weighted average shares outstanding.......     781,306      901,202
                                                     ===========  ===========
Pro forma net loss per share........................ $     (2.12) $     (2.43)
                                                     ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Excludes shares and warrants to be placed into escrow according to the
    "Escrow Agreement."
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I, David D. Hillard, Chief Financial Officer of Fisher Communications, Inc., certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FisherCommunications, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, thisannual 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 theperiod covered by this annual report; 

 

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

 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 12, 2003
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries of United Microelectronics Corporation



|                                        |  |                               |  |                                               
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Company                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage of Ownershipas of December 31,
2006
|UMC Group (USA)                         |  | California, USA               |  | 100.00%                                       
|United Microelectronics (Europe) B.V.   |  | The Netherlands               |  | 100.00%                                       
|UMC Capital Corporation                 |  | Cayman Islands                |  | 100.00%                                       
|United Microelectronics Corp. (Samoa)   |  | Samoa                         |  | 100.00%                                       
|TLC Capital Co., Ltd                    |  | Taiwan, ROC                   |  | 100.00%                                       
|UMCi Ltd.                               |  | Singapore                     |  | 100.00%                                       
|Fortune Venture Capital Corporation     |  | Taiwan, ROC                   |  | 99.99%                                        
|United Microdisplay Optronics Corp. (1) |  | Taiwan, ROC                   |  | 81.76%                                        
|UMC Japan                               |  | Japan                         |  | 50.09%                                        
|Unitruth Investment Corp.               |  | Taiwan, ROC                   |  | 100.00%                                       
|UMC Capital (USA)                       |  | California, USA               |  | 100.00%                                       
|ECP VITA Ltd.                           |  | British Virgin Islands        |  | 100.00%                                       

---

|(1) | Thintek Optronics Corp., a subsidiary of our company prior to October 1, 2006 was merged into United Microdisplay Optronics Corp. on that date.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1
News United States Air Force
 Yesterday’s Air Force: Lafayette EscadrillePublished April 20, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – A century ago, American Airmen began to fly for the French Air Service in World War I. This episode looks at their role in the war effort.  
Yesterday's Air Force is a history and heritage featurette series profiling significant people and missions from the Air Force's past.YAF 



Lafayette Escadrille 



heritage 



WWI