alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONSI, Joseph F. Trungale, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie Callender’s Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;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 of operationsand 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)) forthe registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: July 18, 2007         BY: /s/ Joseph F. Trungale           Joseph F. Trungale
EXHIBIT 10.14

                         Assignment of Lease Agreement

                              ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE

     Agreement made the 10th day of March, 1998, between EEMPACT
CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, located at 290
Vincent Avenue, Third Floor, Hackensack, New Jersey, hereinafter
called the assignor, and K-TRONIK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
corporation of the State of New Jersey, located at 290 Vincent
Avenue, Third Floor, Hackensack, New Jersey, hereinafter called the
assignee.

     WHEREAS, by Lease dated November 12, 1997, made between 98
INCORPORATED, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, and the
assignor, the premises described as the third floor of building
located at 290 Vincent Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey, were leased to
the assignor for the term of five (5) years from the first day of
December , 1997, and subject to the covenants, conditions, and
stipulations therein contained:

     WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by
the assignee to the assignor, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, the assignor assigns to the assignee the premises
described in said Lease, for the unexpired term of said Lease subject
to the payment of the rent and performance of the covenants,
conditions, and stipulations in said Lease.

     The assignee covenants during the continuance of said term to
pay the rents reserved and to perform the covenants, conditions, and
stipulations in said Lease to be performed by the Lessee and to keep
indemnified the assignor against all actions, claims and demands
whatsoever in respect to the said rents, covenants, conditions and
stipulations, or anything relating thereto.

     In the event of any default by the assignee, the assignor hereby
guarantees the payment of all rents reserved in said Lease and to
perform the covenants, conditions and stipulations in said Lease.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
seals, or caused these presents to be signed by their proper
corporate officers and their proper corporate seal to be hereto
affixed, the day and year first above written.

EEMPACT CORP.                          K-TRONIK INT'L CORPORATION

/s/ Robert Kim                         /s/ Robert Kim
Robert Kim                             Robert Kim
President/Secretary                    President/Secretary

98 INCORPORATED, hereby consents to the within Assignment of Lease.

/s/ Stephen D. Grimaldi                /s/ David W. Grimaldi
Stephen D. Grimaldi, Secretary         David W. Grimaldi, President
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Khamsouk Inthavong, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50161-PHX-SRB

DETENTION ORDER 

 On December 8, 2017, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 8th day of December, 2017. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Donald N. Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Restaurant Company.

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

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

4. 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 we 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 quarterly 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.

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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
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 18, 2003

                                                BY: /s/ Donald N. Smith
                                                    -------------------
                                                Donald N. Smith
                                                Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Pratt & Whitney PurePower 1217G Engine Developed in Collaboration with NASA","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GXENLeGlg1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/pratt-whitney-purepower-1217g-engine-developed-collaboration-with-nasa\/\">Pratt & Whitney PurePower 1217G Engine Developed in Collaboration with NASA<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/pratt-whitney-purepower-1217g-engine-developed-collaboration-with-nasa\/embed\/#?secret=GXENLeGlg1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Pratt & Whitney PurePower 1217G Engine Developed in Collaboration with NASA” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GXENLeGlg1\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/pw_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":900}
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50054

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS GOMEZ-NOGESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-323-1-FB

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Luis Gomez-Nogese appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Gomez-Nogese contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Gomez-Nogese maintains that he
No. 03-50054

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Gomez-Nogese acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

George Krzystofczyk, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Deer Valley Credit Union, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02154-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice 

as to Equifax, Inc., and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Doc. 40), and good cause 

appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation is granted. This action is dismissed with 

prejudice as to Defendant Equifax, Inc. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., with 

each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 Dated this 6th day of April, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02154-DLR Document 41 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-41","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TthAIWoxOL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-41\/\">STS-41<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-41\/embed\/#?secret=TthAIWoxOL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-41” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TthAIWoxOL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/STS041-S-002\/STS041-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Marco Montes-Medina, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0982-PHX-ROS 

 CR-98-0844-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On November 24, 2006, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. #74) recommending that the Court issue an order denying

Movant's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. #69). No objections were filed by

either party.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise."'). District

courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

Case 2:98-cr-00844-ROS Document 75 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been

made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 74) is ADOPTED and

Movant's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. #69) is DENIED.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:98-cr-00844-ROS Document 75 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Henry Hester et al *v.*Samuel Graham et al.

Action — Amended Petition Changing Cause of Action — Summons On.

The amended petition had the effect of changing the action from a suit founded on the alleged parol promise, to one on three notes which had then matured. Held to be virtually bringing a new suit on the notes.

Same — Process—Service.

The judgment rendered on the same day without the service of pz-ocess on the amended petition was erroneous.

APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT.

February 20, 1869.

*C. D. Smith, for appellant.*

*Gilbert, Dr. Holland, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

As we construe the original petition, it seeks a recovery on the agreement alleged in the second paragraph to have been made by the defendants, that they would pay the first note and also rents for the use of the mills and damages which had been sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of defendants’ negligence.

The amended petition filed on the 23rd of August had the effect of changing the action from a suit founded on the alleged parol promise to one on the three notes which had then matured, according to the original contract. This was virtually bringing a new suit on the notes; and the judgment rendered on the same day without the service of process on the amended petition, not being authorized by the original petition, but inconsistent with it, was in our opinion erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### PORTUDA, Defendant-Appellee, v. Eon SHEPHERD, Plaintiff-Appellant.

No. 03-0148.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 22, 2005.

*455Eon Shepherd, Alden, NY, for Appellee, pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitor Generals, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Appellees.

Present: MESKILL, JACOBS, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Eon Shepherd, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment entered on March 25, 2003 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, /.), adopting Magistrate Judge DiBianco’s decision granting defendant-appellees’ motions for summary judgment as to Shepherd’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he claimed denial of access to the courts. We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural context, and the issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.