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: May 14, 2004

By: /s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
---------------------------------
Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 11.03

                          ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                             YEARS ENDED
                                                               JUNE 30,
                                                      --------------------------

                                                         1997           1996
                                                         ----           ----

PRIMARY  EARNINGS PER SHARE: (1)
COMMON STOCK  EQUIVALENTS
  OPTIONS AND WARRANTS GRANTED AND UNEXERCISED           975,666        938,000
  ASSUMED BUYBACK OF OPTIONS (2)                        (580,749)      (536,250)
                                                      ----------     ----------
                                                         394,917        401,750
TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES ISSUED                   5,297,913      5,717,663
                                                      ----------     ----------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES  OUTSTANDING                   5,692,830      6,119,413
                                                      ==========     ==========

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (1)
COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS
  OPTIONS AND WARRANTS GRANTED AND UNEXERCISED           975,666        938,000
  ASSUMED BUYBACK OF OPTIONS (2)                        (580,749)      (536,250)
                                                      ----------     ----------
                                                         394,917        401,750
TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES ISSUED                   5,297,913      5,717,663
                                                      ----------     ----------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                    5,692,830      6,119,413
                                                      ==========     ==========



(1)  EARNINGS  PER SHARE ARE BASED UPON THE  WEIGHTED  AVERAGE  NUMBER OF SHARES
     OUTSTANDING FOR EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE  YEARS.  ALL WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
     OUTSTANDING  GIVE  RETROACTIVE  EFFECT TO THE  2,000  FOR 1 STOCK  SPLIT IN
     OCTOBER,  1995,  AND THE  ISSUANCE OF  2,250,000 IN RELATION TO THE POOLING
     COMBINATION.  PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION RULES, COMMON
     STOCK ISSUED FOR  CONSIDERATION  BELOW THE  ANTICIPATED  OFFERING PRICE PER
     SHARE DURING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO FILING OF THE  REGISTRATION  STATEMENT HAS
     BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF COMMON SHARE  EQUIVALENT  SHARE,  USING
     THE TREASURY STOCK METHOD,  AS IF THEY HAD BEEN OUTSTANDING FOR ALL PERIODS
     PRESENTED.

(2)  BUYBACK OF OPTIONS  UNDER THE  TREASURY  STOCK METHOD IS AT THE ASSUMED IPO
     PRICE OF $4.00 PER SHARE.
#### H.S., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

No. 3D10-3003.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 13, 2011.

*294Joseph P. George, Jr., Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant.,

Karla Perkins, Appellate Counsel for Department of Children and Family; Hillary Kambour, Appellate Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

Before, SHEPHERD and EMAS, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *V.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs.,*949 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
#### Frederick L. SNELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-5475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 8, 2010.

Frederick L. Snell, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5995-5996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2009-OS-0087]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 8, 
2010.
    Title and OMB Number: Qualification to Possess Firearms or 
Ammunition; OMB Control Number 0704-0461.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 125 companies.

[[Page 5996]]

    Responses per Respondent: 5 to 2,500 employees (average 120).
    Annual Responses: 15,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 3,750 hours (15,000 employees x .25 hrs).
    Needs and Uses: In accordance with DoD Instruction 3020.50, 
``Private Security Contractors Operating in Contingency Operations'' 
written acknowledgement by the contract company and its individual 
Private Security Contractor (PSC) personnel, after investigation of 
background of PSC personnel by the contractor, shall be provided 
verifying such personnel are not prohibited under 922(g) of title 18, 
United States Code to possess firearms or ammunition.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: January 26, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-2453 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00014

- CV

Sherman Patrick MILLER, Appellant

v.

Lee Ann Marie MILLER, Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court , Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 12

- 51753

- CV Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A filing fee of $195.00 was due when this appeal was filed but it was not paid. See

T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N THE S UPREME C OURT

, I N C IVIL
C ASES I N THE C OURTS OF A PPEALS

, AND B EFORE THE J UDICIAL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT
L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127, Aug. 16, 2013). The clerk of the court notified appellants of this deficiency in a letter dated January 6 , 2014. The fee remains unpaid. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

– at the time an item is presented f or filing

– whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We therefore order appellant, not later than Februar y 7, 2014 to eithe r (1) pay the applicable filing fee

, or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fail s to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.The clerk is ordered to serve copies of this order on all counsel, the district clerk, and the

court reporter.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of January, 2014

.

__________________________________ _ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Order filed November 6 , 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00899

- CV

____________ IN RE DONNIE MINNARD , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 31207



### ORDER

R elator Donnie Minnard has filed a motion to file the mandamus record under
seal

. Relator has not provided this court with a permanent sealing order from the trial court that complies with the requirements of Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.Relator has until January 3
, 2019 to supplement the mandamus record with a copy of a permanent sealing order of the documents in the mandamus record that complies with Rule 76a. Failure to do so will result in the denial of relator’s motion
to file the mandamus record under seal, unless, before that date, relator present s briefing, with citations to authority, to this court establishing a valid legal basis on which this court may maintain the documents in the mandamus record under seal without an order showing the documents have been perma nently sealed in the trial
court in accordance with Rule 76a.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
eShare.com, Inc. (formerly eShare Technologies, Inc.):


We have audited the balance sheet of eShare.com, Inc. (formerly eShare
Technologies, Inc.) as of December 31, 1998, and the related statements of
operations, redeemable preferred stock and stockholders' deficit and cash flows
for the year then ended (not presented separately herein). These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of eShare.com, Inc. (formerly
eShare Technologies, Inc.) as of December 31, 1998, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.



                                                     /s/ KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
April 16, 1999, except for Note 12,
   which is as of June 15, 1999


                                       59
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 5, 2019

t0225 

# Order

Clerk March 5, 2019

157883

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157883

COA: 332128

Macomb CC: 2014

- 004084

- FC

BRIAN CHRISTOPHER PATRICK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Apr il 10, 2018

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Danielle S. OELMANN.

No. 2012-KK-0507.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2012.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 11-M1444-5; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,-111,KW.

Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed. The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for random allotment is reinstated. See La. R.S. 1:7; *State v. Cooper,*2010-2344 (La.11/16/10); 50 So.3d 115.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THEODORE M. HURWITZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 01-6226

J. E. GUNJA, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-00-304-JFM)

Submitted: May 31, 2001

Decided: June 13, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Theodore M. Hurwitz, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,

Andrea Margaretta Leahy-Fucheck, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM

Theodore Hurwitz appeals the district court's order denying his

habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) on the basis that his

sole claim had been raised and denied on the merits in an earlier

motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), a denial which

Hurwitz did not appeal. However, under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2244(a) (West

Supp. 2000), no district court is required to entertain a habeas petition

inquiring into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a

court of the United States if it appears that "the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on

a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus." In light of the

Supreme Court's recognition that a § 2255 motion is the substantial

equivalent of a habeas corpus petition for a federal inmate, Sanders

v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963), the district court's denial of

Hurwitz's petition is without error. Furthermore, to the extent Hurwitz alleges errors in the district court's original determination on the

merits, we are mindful that habeas review is an extraordinary remedy

and "`will not be allowed to do service for an appeal.'" Harris, 180

F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339,

354 (1994); Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 178 (1947)). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court's order, and dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5803-5804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLORP00000.L10200000.PI0000; Hag10-0119]


John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council; Meetings

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Meeting Notice for the John Day/Snake Resource Advisory 
Council.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) John Day/Snake Resource Advisory 
Council (JDSRAC) will meet as indicated below:

DATES: The JDSRAC meeting will begin 8 a.m. PST on February 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The JDSRAC will meet at the Oxford Suites Pendleton, 2400 SW 
Court Place, Pendleton, Oregon 97801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda includes new member 
orientation, setting the calendar for 2010 meetings, election of 
officers for 2010, Baker Resource Management Plan RAC Involvement, Sub-
Committee Reports, and other matters as may reasonably come before the 
council. The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting 
and may make oral comments to the Council at 1 p.m. on February 24, 
2010. Those who verbally address the JDSRAC are asked to provide a 
written statement of their comments or presentation. Unless otherwise 
approved by the JDSRAC Chair, the public comment period will last no 
longer than 15 minutes, and each speaker may address the JDSRAC for a

[[Page 5804]]

maximum of five minutes. If reasonable accommodation is required, 
please contact the BLM's Prineville District at (541) 416-6889 as soon 
as possible.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Lilienthal, Public Affairs 
Specialist, 3050 NE Third, Prineville, OR 97754, (541) 416-6889 or e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee8d869c879d9a87808fb1828782878b809a868f82ae8c8283c0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="70131802190304191e112f1c191c19151e0418111c30121c1d5e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 29, 2010.
Deborah J. Henderson-Norton,
District Manager, Prineville District Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-2426 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Alexander BRAVO and Ailibis J. Bravo, Appellants, v. NATIONAL CITY BANK, Successor by Merger to National City Bank of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1828.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 2011.

Alexander Bravo and Ailibis J. Bravo, in proper persons.

Shutts & Bowen, and Temple Fett Kearns, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, WELLS, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*On Confession of Error*

Upon consideration of the appellee’s response and statement of error filed February 7, 2011, the final summary judgment of foreclosure and the order denying motion for rehearing are reversed; this case is remanded for further proceedings including, but not limited to, amendments to the *632parties’ pleadings and a re-filing of any motions by the parties thereafter.

Reversed and remanded.