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


                                   Exhibit 24

                      CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
                     OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                   REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING
              TO FORM 10-Q FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDED AUGUST 2, 2002


I, Joseph M. Harris, President and Chief Executive Officer, state and attest
that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of HLM Design, Inc.'s
Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter ended August 2, 2002 (the
"Report"):

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 the operations of HLM
     Design, Inc.

/s/ Joseph M. Harris                           Subscribed and sworn to before me
--------------------------------------------   this 22 day of September, 2002.
Joseph M. Harris
President and Chief Executive Officer
HLM Design, Inc.
                                               /s/ Dianne E. McNeff
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Notary Public

Date:  September 22, 2002
                                               My Commission Expires: 4/5/2004



I, Vernon B. Brannon, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Office and Chief
Financial Officer, state and attest that to the best of my knowledge, based upon
a review of HLM Design, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter
ended September 22, 2002 (the "Report"):

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 the operations of HLM
     Design, Inc.

/s/ Vernon B. Brannon                          Subscribed and sworn to before me
--------------------------------------------   this 22nd day of September, 2002.
Vernon B. Brannon
Chief Financial Officer
HLM Design, Inc.
                                               /s/ Dianne E. McNeff
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Notary Public

Date:  September 22, 2002
                                               My Commission Expires: 4/5/2004
#### Stephen A. Loy *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-974A234.

Filed July 15, 1975.]

*Stephen J. Cuthbert,*Tippecanoe Public Defender, of Lafayette, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendalc,*Attorney General, *Robert E. Dwyer,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

*63Per Curiam

Stephen A. Loy is appealing his conviction for the offense of robbery while armed.1 He was ordered committed to the Department of Correction for a determinate period of ten (10) years.

We affirm.

The facts viewed most favorably to the state reveal that on Tuesday, November 27, 1973, Cliston Shackleford, a seventeen-year old high school student, had gone to work at 6:00 p.m. at the Mary-Lou Donut Shop in the city of Lafayette, Indiana. Shortly after 8:30 p.m., two men, who subsequently were identified as Loy and one Goonen, entered the shop and inquired if anybody had asked for them. The gentleman asking the question spoke in such a low tone that Miss Shackle-ford was forced to walk right up in front of him in order to ascertain the nature of the question. She then responded in the negative and the individuals left the shop.

About a half hour later, the same two men returned to the donut shop. The two men quickly walked up to the counter and were within two feet of Miss Shackleford when they inquired if anybody else was in the shop. After receiving a negative answer from her, they stated, “give us your money.” They each drew a handgun and ordered Miss Shackleford to get a sack for the money. Miss Shackleford had opened the cash register and was placing the money in a sack when one of the men ripped the cord from the telephone. After admonishing Miss Shackleford not to describe them to anybody, the men walked out of the donut shop.

Loy was charged by affidavit with commission of a felony while armed, to-wit: robbery. Trial was held before a jury on March 5,1974 and Loy was convicted as charged.

Loy’s sole contention on appeal is that the pre-trial identification conducted by the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department and the Lafayette Police Department were so unnecessarily suggestive as to render the prosecuting witness’s in-court identification inadmissible as violative of due process *64of law. Loy failed to preserve this question in that he did not object to the victim’s identification testimony at trial. As a consequence, he has waived the issue. *Sargeant*v. *State*(1970), 255 Ind. 252, 263 N.E.2d *525; Mosby*v. *State*(1975), 164 Ind. App. 479, 329 N.E.2d 600; *Hardin*v. *State*(1972), 153 Ind. App. 317, 287 N.E.2d 359.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 330 N.E.2d 773.

1

. IC 1971, 35-12-1-1, Ind.Ann.Stat., § 10-4709 (Burns Supp. 1974).
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 459

Commemorating 50 years of relations between the United States and the

Republic of Korea.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 1998

Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. ROHRABACHER,

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. KIM) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Commemorating 50 years of relations between the United

States and the Republic of Korea.

Whereas the Republic of Korea was established 50 years ago

on August 15, 1948;

Whereas the United States and the Republic of Korea have

long had a close relationship based on mutual respect,

shared security goals, and common interests and values;

Whereas the United States relies on the Republic of Korea

as a partner and treaty ally in fostering regional stability,

enhancing prosperity, and promoting peace and democracy;
2

•HRES 459 IH

Whereas the American military personnel who are, and have

been, stationed on the Korean Peninsula have been key

in deterring armed aggression for more than 4 decades;

Whereas South Korean soldiers fought alongside American

troops on the battlefields of Korea and Vietnam;

Whereas the Republic of Korea has embraced economic reform and free market principles in response to current

economic circumstances;

Whereas the Republic of Korea is an important trading partner of the United States, the recipient of significant direct American investment, and a prominent investor in

the United States;

Whereas the large Korean-American community has made

significant contributions to American society and culture;

Whereas the people of the Republic of Korea have demonstrated their strong commitment to democratic principles and practices through free and fair elections; and

Whereas the state visit of President Kim Dae-jung to the

United States offers the people of the United States and

the people of South Korea an opportunity to renew their

commitment to international cooperation on issues of mutual interest and concern: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates the Republic of Korea on the

3 50th anniversary of its founding;

4 (2) commends the people of the Republic of

5 Korea on the peaceful democratic transition that has

6 taken place during the most recent Presidential elec7 tions;
3

•HRES 459 IH

1 (3) supports the government of President Kim

2 Dae-jung as it takes appropriate measures to ad3 dress the problems in the Korean economy;

4 (4) confirms that the question of peace, secu5 rity, and reunification on the Korean Peninsula is,

6 first and foremost, a matter for the Korean people

7 to decide and that the Four-Party Peace Talks com8 plement direct North-South dialog; and

9 (5) looks forward to a broadening and deepen10 ing of friendship and cooperation with the Republic

11 of Korea in the years ahead for the mutual benefit

12 of the people of the United States and the people of

13 the Republic of Korea.

Æ
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MELISSA THORNLEY, DEBORAH 

BENJAMIN-KOLLER, and JOSUE 

HERRERA, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CLEARVIEW AI, INC., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. ______________ 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURES OF CLEARVIEW AI, INC.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.2, Defendant Clearview 

AI, Inc. (“Clearview”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby discloses that Clearview is a 

private Delaware corporation. It does not have a publicly held parent company. Rothschild 

Investment Trust Capital Partners plc owns greater than 5 percent of Clearview. No publicly 

held company owns more than 10 percent of Clearview. 

Dated: May 15, 2020 Clearview AI, Inc. 

By: /s/ Howard Suskin 

One of its attorneys 

David Saunders 

Howard Suskin 

JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

353 North Clark Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

(312) 222-9350 

dsaunders@jenner.com 

hsuskin@jenner.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02916 Document #: 3 Filed: 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:70
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, David P. Saunders, an attorney, hereby certify that on May 15, 2020, I caused one copy 

of the foregoing CORPORATE DISCLOSURES OF CLEARVIEW AI, INC. to be served on 

counsel listed below by e-mail:

Daniel M. Feeney 

Zachary J. Freeman 

Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP 

Firm ID: 90236 

180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

dfeeney@millershakman.com 

zfreeman@millershakman.com 

David S. Golub

Steven L. Bloch

Ian W. Sloss

Silver Golub & Teitell LLP 

184 Atlantic Street 

Stamford, CT 06901 

dgolub@sgtlaw.com 

sbloch@sgtlaw.com 

isloss@sgtlaw.com 

Kevin M. Forde 

Brian P. O’Meara 

Kevin R. Malloy 

Forde & O’Meara LLP 

111 West Washington Street 

Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60602 

kforde@fordellp.com 

bomeara@fordellp.com 

kmalloy@fordellp.com 

By: /s/ David Saunders 

Case: 1:20-cv-02916 Document #: 3 Filed: 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:71
3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02916 Document #: 3 Filed: 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:72
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Henry WASSERMAN, aka Seal B, Henry Vasserman, Henry Khodar, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-50238.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2004.

Decided Dec. 1, 2004.

*524Eileen M. Decker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ronald N. Richards, Law Office of Ronald Richards Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The government appeals the district court’s order dismissing a 51-count criminal indictment as a sanction for the government’s refusal to answer 7 of 26 defense interrogatories about the government’s investigation of the defendant’s counsel.

In determining whether or not to dismiss an indictment as a sanction for discovery violations, the district court must examine whether the defendant was substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with the discovery order and whether other sanctions would be inadequate. *See United States v. Morrison,*449 U.S. 361, 365, 101 S.Ct. 665, 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981); *United States v. Lopez,*4 F.3d 1455, 1464 (9th Cir.1993). The district court in this case focused on the original government conduct that gave rise to the discovery request. The record does not provide us with any explanation of why the government should have provided responses to these particular questions that appear, at least on their face, to be less related to the purposes of the discovery than the questions the government did answer. Nor does the record demonstrate that Wasserman was substantially prejudiced in his defense. Accordingly, we are unable to uphold the ultimate sanction of dismissal of the entire indictment for a refusal to comply with a part of a discovery request.

The district court’s dismissal is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions to reinstate the indictment.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry Jefferson SEXTON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7700.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

Jerry Jefferson Sexton, Appellant pro se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Jefferson Sexton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sexton 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### J. H. & J. W. White *v.*G. W. Bondurant.

Principal and Surety — Surety Bound by Statement, Notwithstanding Statute of Limitation.

A surety may be bound for tbe debt of his principal, by his statement, although the recovery against him as surety was barred by time.

Attachment — Proof of Fraud Charged.

Before this extraordinary remedy is resorted to, the party obtaining it should have proof upon which to base this action, and the court, in hearing and determining such a question, ought to 'be well satisfied, from the testimony, of the existence of the fraud charged.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

March 2, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The court very properly refused to permit the appellants to file an amended answer. The statements of James White upon his examination by appellee’s counsel made him liable for the debt although the recovery against him as surety was barred by time.

Himself and *brother had*received an estate from their father more than sufficient to pay the appellees debt, and were liable for that reason. The attachment, however, should not have been sustained. The only proof introduced upon this subject, was in substance that the appellants had but little, if any, estate, and that an attachment had been levied upon two mules about one year prior to the trial of this case in favor of one Baskett and the mules sold. That on the day or about the time Baskett’s attachment issued the appellants were in the possession of four mules and only two of them were found. Before this extraordinary remedy is resorted to, the party obtaining it should have some proof upon which to base this action, and the court in hearing and. determining such a question ought to be well satisfied from the testimony of the existence of the fraud charged. The claim of the appellee is no doubt meritorious, and the appellants have doubtless squandered an estate that ought to have been applied at least a part of it to the payments of their father’s debt, but this record presents no such state of facts as authorized the court below to sustain the attachment.

*352
      *B. Twyman, A. G. Roberts, for appellants.*

*Harwood, for appellee.*

The judgment is reversed, only so far as it sustains the attachment and the cause remanded with directions to the court below to discharge the attachment and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Judge Peters not sitting.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 113

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20150 D0 3170 )

O R D E R

The Court has reviewed the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal

which provides that this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal “as to

punishment only.” In this case, Appellant was found guilty by a jury but he entered into a plea

agreement with the State on punishment. The Court has also reviewed the appellate record from

the plea hearing and the parties’ letter briefs addressing whether Appellant has a right to appeal.

Appellant and the State agree tha t Appellant has a limited right to appeal. The Court finds that

Appellant does not have a right to appeal any matters related to punishment, but he retains the

right to appeal issues arising from the pre

- trial and jury trial proceedings in cause number

20 150D03170. Therefore, the Appellant’s brief is now due January 21, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 nd day of December , 20 1 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 217

Recognizing the important contributions made by Americans of Austrian

heritage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 3, 1997

Mr. BEREUTER (for himself and Mr. GILMAN) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the important contributions made by Americans

of Austrian heritage.

Whereas the United States and the Republic of Austria have

enjoyed close and friendly relations since the inception of

the Republic of Austria;

Whereas 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the Marshall

Plan which was critically important to the reconstruction

of the Republic of Austria and to the establishment of

friendly ties between the Republic of Austria and the

United States;

Whereas on September 26, 1945, a conference of representatives of the nine Federal states of the Republic of Austria

was held in Vienna that laid the foundation for the provisional Austrian Government and the early elections in

November 1945; and
2

•HRES 217 IH

Whereas a number of States have already proclaimed September 26, 1997, as ‘‘Austrian-American Day’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) declares that the warm and cordial relations

3 between the people of the United States and the Re4 public of Austria should grow stronger; and

5 (2) acknowledges the important contributions to

6 the United States by Americans of Austrian herit7 age.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Pan Am Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garland Koch, certify in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 

 

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hashereunto signed this Certification as of August 1, 2005.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**RIVER ROCKENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Norman Runyan, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of the River Rock EntertainmentAuthority;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)         Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  March 30, 2006          |              |
|--------------------------------|-------------------|
|                           |              |
| By:                            | /s/ Norman Runyan |   |   |
| Norman Runyan                  |              |
| Acting Chief Executive Officer |              |
|                                |                   |  |  |

 

----