alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, NORMAN E. DRAPEAU, JR., certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MRO Software,
Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation;

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 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.       The registrant'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 (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: February 17, 2004

By: /s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
---------------------------------
Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 eAutoclaims, Inc. (the Company), on Form
10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 19,  2008 (the Report), I, Jeffrey Dickson,
the President and CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1.          The
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of eAutoclaims, Inc.

|      |                   |  |             |                         | 
|----- | ----------------- |  | ----------- | ----------------------- | 
|Date: | December 19, 2008 |  |             |                         | 
|      |                   |  |             |                         | 
|     
|      |                   |  |             | /s/ Jeffrey
 Dickson    | 
|      |                   |  |             |                        
|      |                   |  | Print Name: | Jeffrey Dickson         | 
|      |                   |  | Title:      | Chief Executive Officer | 



---
#### Francis Patrick QUINN v. Julie Unangst QUINN.

No. 2011-CC-1158.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Quinn, Francis Patrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 637-411; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-195.

Not considered; not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5(d); *Darden v. Daniel,*09-1097 (La.9/4/09), 16 So.3d 1162.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           10235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9109
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18406
<PP&E>                                            6675
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                       14504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24455
<SALES>                                           6792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6792
<CGS>                                             2324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (136)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    270
<INCOME-TAX>                                       102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
#### Southern Insurance Co. v. M. Levy.

(No. 2050.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Estes & Henry, counsel for appellant.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 2 9. *Statement of facts; sufficient diligence to obtain; failure of judge to file cause for reversal; case stated.*Judgment having been rendered against appellant, it made a motion for a new trial within the time allowed by law, which was heard and overruled on the same day that the court adjourned for the term. Immediately after said motion was overruled counsel for appellant prepared a statement of facts' and presented the same to counsel for appellee for their agreement thereto; but counsel for appellee declining to agree to said statement, appellant’s counsel, several hours before the adjournment *50of the court, presented said statement to the judge, and requested him to prepare, sign and file in the case a proper statement of facts in the case. This the judge failed to do, but adjourned his court for the term, and without entering an order allowing a statement of facts to be filed in vacation. *Held,*error, for which the judgment must be set aside. Appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault on its part. Its counsel used all the diligence required of them to obtain such statement. They were not required to prepare and present a statement of facts until after the case had been finally disposed of by the order overruling the motion for new trial. No reason whatever is disclosed for the failure of the judge to perform his plain and imperative duty in the matter. If the fact was that he did not have sufficient time before his term of court expired to discharge this duty, he should have entered an order allowing a statement of facts to be filed in vacation. He clearly had the power, of his own motion, to enter such an order. [R. S. art. 1379; Rushton v. State, 15 Tex. Ct. App. 336; 2 W. Con. Rep. § 824.]

November 18, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
#### George Lee SPERDUTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 18, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

George L. Sperduti, Sneads, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. Abreau,*363 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1978) (holding failure to instruct jury on offense two or more steps removed from charged and convicted offense may be found to be harmless error).

ORFINGER, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of United Microelectronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson Hu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 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: February 13, 2006



By:

/s/ Jackson HuName:

Jackson HuTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          64,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                       255
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,275
<PP&E>                                           4,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,987
<BONDS>                                          4,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,071
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,272
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,110
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,110
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Former AF chief of staff recognized for analysis legacyPublished July 13, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Joshua L. DeMotts
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs Command Information
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper was honored for his analysis work with the Lt. Gen. Glenn A. Kent Leadership Award, presented by Kevin Williams, the director of Air Force Studies, Analyses and Assessments, during a July 11 ceremony at the Pentagon.The Kent award recognizes influential leaders who’ve had substantive analytic responsibilities during their career and whose vision and leadership have had a significant and lasting effect on the achievements of Air Force analysis.According to the award citation, Jumper revitalized the Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency’s relevance with bold and visionary actions that led to the elevation of the agency to an air staff directorate -- Air Force A9. Jumper’s advocacy for analyses factored prominently in decision-making and his vision for enhancing the analytical capability in the Air Force will continue to have impact for years to come.“While the world changed forever after 9/11, you (Gen. Jumper) embarked on a course that would re-energize the Air Force analytic community to bring gold standard, decision quality analysis to senior leaders,” Williams said. “Thank you Gen. Jumper for all you have done for Air Force studies and analyses and specifically for setting the conditions for success we enjoy to this day.” Serendipitously, Jumper received the very award he created to honor Kent’s legacy to serve as inspiration for others to follow.“I think it is imperative we have hardcore, fact-based analysis to be able to present for what we believe and what we think, and it’s backed up by the sort of strategy and concept of operations that are important and relevant to the type of war we are fighting today,” Jumper said. “If we’re still arguing for platforms because we’ve lost the argument for the previous ten years but the idea of this platform was gone five years ago, then we’re fighting the wrong fight.”Jumper closed his remarks and the ceremony by thanking those in attendance, many of whom prominent members of the analytics community, before he quoted his mentor. “Going back to the days of Kent, he would’ve said, ‘Let’s go get ourselves a case, let’s analyze it and present the facts,’ and that’s what I believe,” he said.Lt. Gen. Glenn A. Kent Leadership Award 



leadership 



award 



analysis
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 Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2008 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Niv E. CaviarNiv E. CaviarExecutive Vice President, Chief Business
Officer and Chief Financial Officer Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lisa S. KIRSCHMAN v. Arnold L. KIRSCHMAN.

No. 2011-CC-0671.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 4, 2011.

In re Kirschman, Arnold L.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2006-6464; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0433.

Stay denied; writ denied.
#### LAMBERT v. UNITED STATES.

No. 49174.

United States Court of Claims.

Decided Jan. 8, 1952.

Samuel T. Ansell, Jr., Washington, D. C. (Ansell & Ansell, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff.

Mr. Ernest C. Baynard, Washington, D. C., Holmes Baldridge, Asst. Atty. Gen. (R. W. Koslcinen, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and HOWELL, Judges.

JONES, Chief Judge.

The essential facts are concisely stated in the findings, which are based upon a stipulation by the parties, and will not be repeated here.

The issue is the rate of retired pay which plaintiff is entitled to receive.

Plaintiff, a Regular Army officer, was retired on July 31, 1947, on which date he completed exactly 30 years of servicé.

He was given the retired pay of his rank with an increase of 45 percent for length of service. He claims his retirement pay should have been increased by 50 percent on account of the fact that he had completed 30 years of service.

• The defendant denies that he is entitled to the increase.

Primarily the retirement rate under the statutes 1 is based on active duty pay at the time of retirement. At the time of his retirement plaintiff was not drawing the active duty pay of his grade with over 30 years of service. In fact, he never drew such pay. Had he started on the next period of service he would have been entitled to draw the increased pay of that period and *768would have been, entitled to the 50 percent increase rather than the 45 percent which was allowed.

This may seem technical, but there must be a dividing line. Section 232 of Title 37 U.S.C.A. reads in part as follows:

> “§ 232. Basic pay — Pay grades and monthly basic pay.

> “(a) For the purpose of computing the basic pay of members of the uniformed services, pay grades are prescribed and monthly basic pay for such members is established within each pay grade according to cumulative years of service, as follows:

> “[Here follows a table showing the pay grade, including 0-6, which was plaintiff’s grade, with cumulative service of over 26 years, and with similar service of over 30 years.]”

Had plaintiff actually entered on his thirty-first year of service so that his rate of active pay at the time of retirement had been that of his grade with more than 30 years of active service, he would have been entitled to the 50 percent increase for which he contends. This additional pay period he did not enter. His longevity increase must be based upon his active duty pay at the time of retirement. The case of Wood v. United States, 77 Ct.Cl. 578, is not applicable. The case of Wilkinson v. United States, 85 Ct.Cl. 329, does not support plaintiff’s position.

The petition is dismissed.

HOWELL, MADDEN and LITTLE-TON, JJ., concur.

WHITAKER, J., dissents.

1

. 37 U.S.C.A. §§ 232, 272(d); Sec. 1, Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 359, as amended June 29, 1946, 60 Stat. 343.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-K AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>             247,977
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>            315,186
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               34,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    349,515
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>         671,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>               671,189
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           59,043
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               4,456
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               3,710
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>         (380,717)
<NET-ASSETS>                     (321,674)
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   1,313
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    251,327
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (250,014)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          67,209
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            (222,805)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>               746
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>           (223,799)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              10,404
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   251,327
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>             (209,774)
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               74.12
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         0
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>            (54.56)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 28.95
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                         0

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Darrell MORGAN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2589.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Morgan, Darrell; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 378-032; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1363.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Tyrone LOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Lomas, Tyrone; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 9681; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0046.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.