alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Benjamin Weston,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of ML Futures Investments L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge,this  report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere 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 thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

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

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

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

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

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

a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweakness in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonablylikely 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 14, 2006                  |                 |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                   |                 |
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN  WESTON |   |
| Benjamin Weston                        |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |
|                                        |                      |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2004-28, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2004-28 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2004.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 30, 2005











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2004.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
#### The People v. Jeremiah Stackhouse.

*Witness*— Impeachment *by expressions out of cov/rt.*

A witness in a criminal case cannot be impeached by showing that out of court he had expressed suspicions as to the respondent which on cross-examination he says he does not remember expressing.

Error to Hillsdale.

Submitted June 20.

Decided Oct. 4.

Information for arson. Respondent brings error.

Reversed.

*Albert Dickerman*and *George A. Kmckerboclcer'iox*appel- ■ lant.

It cannot be shown on cross-examination that the witness has given an opinion out of court relative to the subject matter of the suit, *inconsistent with the conclusion*which th *& facts*which he testified to at the trial will warrant: 1 Greenl. Ev. § 449; *Rucker v. Beaty*3 Ind. 70; *Pruitt v. Miller*3 Ind. 16; *McIntire v. Young*6 Blackf. 496; *Elton v. Larkins*5 Car. *&*P. 86; *Holmes v. Anderson*18 Barb. *77420; *Furst v. Second Avenue R. R. Co.*72 N. Y. 543 ; *Murphy v. Com.*23 Grat. 960; *Daniels v. Conrad*4 Leigh 401; Cow. & H. notes, Phil. Ev. notes 509, 533; *Lane v. Bryant*9 Gray 245; *Com. v. Snow*111 Mass. 409; *Com. v. Mooney*110 Mass. 99.

Attorney General *Jacob J. Van Riper*for the People.

If testimony relates to matters in issue, evidence is admissible to show that witness had stated otherwise out of court : *Smith v. People*2 Mich. 415 ; *Strang v. People*24 Mich. 1; *Lightfoot v. People*16 Mich. 511; *Geary v. People,*22 Mich. 220.

Marston, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of arson in burning a grist-mill. On the trial Lizzie Stack-house, wife of a brother of respondent, was examined as a witness in his behalf. On cross-examination she was asked if she remembered saying to George Dibler and George Walker the night the accused was arrested, that she always did suspect Jerry burned the mill. Her answer was that she did not. Afterwards Dibler and Walker were called and testified under objection that she had so stated. The question raised is, was it competent to thus impeach Lizzie Stackhouse? Upon the argument my impressions were strongly in favor of the admissibility of this evidence because the effect thereof would be to destroy, or at least weaken, the testimony of the principal witness. An examination of the authorities cited by counsel for respondent compels a different conclusion. The opinion or suspicions of the witness out of court, although inconsistent with the conclusion which the facts she testifies to on the trial would warrant, cannot be made the basis of an impeachment. This is so firmly settled by the authorities that the question cannot be considered an open one.

The judgment must therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

 

# **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

                In connection with the Quarterly Reportof 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Brian W. Bethers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

 
|   | /s/ Brian W. Bethers                  |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | Date: November  12, 2004              |   |

 

 

 

----
Exhibit 15.2

[Letterhead of TransAsia Lawyers]

11 June, 2008

eLong, Inc.

Block B, XingKe Plaza Building

10 Middle Jiuxianqiao Road

Chaoyang District, Beijing 100016

Peoples Republic of China

Dear Sirs:

We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading Government Regulation in Item 4: Information on the Company in eLong, Inc.s Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of June 2008.

Yours faithfully,



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ TransAsia Lawyers
|TransAsia Lawyers
NIST colleagues,

Thanks for the opportunity to review Draft Baseline Criteria for Consumer Software Cybersecurity

Labeling. The following summarizes our thoughts ten aspects of the Criteria, in the order posed in the

Note for Reviewers:

1. The criteria are likely to moderately improve consumer software security awareness and actual

software cybersecurity.

2. Ethical software providers are likely to invest in baseline conformance and supply truthful

attestations, resulting in modest cybersecurity improvements.

3. Label-specific criteria are reasonably appropriate and should be effective for a motivated,

educated segment of consumers who care about cybersecurity.

4. The label should include a simple, clear, jargon-free descriptive statement about its overall

meaning. Keep in mind most consumers don’t know what NIST is.

5. Consumer education is essential to the project’s success, and should include testing of both

educational materials and the labeling itself.

6. The software and IOT binary labels should be very similar in appearance.

7. In an ideal world conformity would be verified via independent audit, but we understand selfattestation is a more affordable & practical approach for now.

8. A template and examples would help software providers create useful, consistent Declarations.

9. Other than the 3 manifests, there don’t appear to be any evidentiary requirements since all

other Assertions take the form of self-attestation.

10. The baseline criteria are generally appropriate. Software identifiers should follow some standard

format for consistency and readability.

An additional comment:

It’s unclear how the proposed labeling methodology will adapt to future revisions to the baseline. As

new Criteria are added in future years, there will inevitably be new versions of the baseline. The label

should indicate which version of the baseline a software product conforms to (e.g., “2022”).

Sincerely,

Michael McCormick, CISSP

Founder & President

Taproot Security LLC

Web: www.taprootsecurity.com

Blog: www.ntkblog.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/taprootsec

Twitter: https://twitter.com/taprootsec
45265326.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN GARNER AND DEBORAH 

SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated individuals, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an 

Illinois Insurance Company,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-04693

Hon. John Z. Lee 

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Steven L. Woodrow 

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 5, 2020, at 9:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as 

counsel may be heard, I shall appear telephonically before the Honorable John Z. Lee, or any judge 

sitting in his stead in Courtroom 2125, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, and shall present: DEFENDANT 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY’S CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

SUBMIT A JOINT STATUS REPORT, a copy of which has been served on you. 

Dated: September 25, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

Allstate Insurance Company 

/s/ Francis X. Nolan, IV 

Francis X. Nolan, IV 

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:46
45265326.1

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 

The Grace Building

1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.

New York, NY 10036

Telephone: (212) 389-5083

Fax: (212) 389-5099

franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:47
45265326.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion 

was served via ECF to the following attorneys of record:

Steven L. Woodrow 

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

/s/Francis X. Nolan, IV___________

Francis X. Nolan, IV

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:48
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      THREE MONTH PERIOD
                                                                        ENDED  MARCH 31,
                                                                      1997           1996
                                                                    --------       --------
<S>                                                                 <C>            <C>     
EARNINGS PER COMMON AND DILUTIVE
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:
  Net Income                                                        $  5,693       $  3,016
                                                                    ========       ========

  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                                              20,962         17,802
  Weighted average number of additional shares
      issuable for common stock equivalents (a)                        1,398            775
                                                                    --------       --------
         Adjusted common shares                                       22,360         18,577
                                                                    ========       ========


EARNINGS PER SHARE                                                  $   0.25       $   0.16
                                                                    ========       ========

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING
  FULL DILUTION:
  Net Income                                                        $  5,693       $  3,016
                                                                    ========       ========

  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                                              20,962         17,802
  Weighted average number of additional shares
      issuable for all dilutive common stock equivalents (a)           1,398            775
                                                                    --------       --------
         Shares as adjusted for all dilutants                         22,360         18,577
                                                                    ========       ========

EARNINGS PER SHARE                                                  $   0.25       $   0.16
                                                                    ========       ========
</TABLE>


(a)   Shares issuable were derived using the "Treasury Stock Method" for all
      dilutive common stock equivalents.
10182.

#### DeLoach *et al. v.*Kennedy, sheriff, for use, etc.

Decided May 14, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Reidsville—Judge Collins. August 13, 1918.

*C. L. Cowart, H. H. Elders,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. C. Beasley,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the facts of the case, the discharge in bankruptcy of the principal upon the forthcoming bond did not release the sureties upon the bond, and was not a good' defense as to the sureties in the suit upon the bond. See, in this connection, *Steinhauer & Wight Inc.*v. *Adair,*20 *Ga. App.*733 (2) (93 S. E. 280), and authorities there cited; Collier on Bankruptcy (11th ed.), § 16, pp. 417, 420.

2. Under the above ruling, the court did not err in charging as complained of in the motion for a new trial; and the verdict for the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence.-

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
NO. 07-05-0118-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 7, 2005

_____________________________

Ex parte ROGER D. PFEIL, 

 Appellant

_________________________________

FROM THE 154TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMB COUNTY;

NO. 16,508; HON. FELIX KLEIN, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dismissal

_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Roger D. Pfiel appeals from an order dismissing his application for writ of habeas

corpus. The writ was sought to obtain release from the purported restraint of Bruce Peel,

mayor of Littlefield, Texas. Peel had moved for dismissal, contending that the trial court

lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings. The trial court granted the motion. We now

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

One may not appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus unless the order

arose after a hearing on the merits and the trial court denied the application on the merits.

Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Next, granting a motion

to dismiss due to the absence of jurisdiction is not a ruling on the merits. See Bland Indep.
2

Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); see also City of Lubbock v. Rule, 68

S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no pet.). So because the trial court dismissed

the appeal due to the lack of jurisdiction, we ourselves have no jurisdiction over the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Brian Quinn

 Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       150,620,367
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             150,620,367
<CASH>                                       3,956,194
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       5,409,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             171,657,418
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              4,803,856
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          2,686,544
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       97,759,007
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       260,057
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,668,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               171,657,418
<PREMIUMS>                                  10,162,954
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          6,871,879
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                         (1,620,040)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 758,641
<BENEFITS>                                   3,592,950
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    730,703
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,055,195
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,055,195
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,055,195
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              11,545,700
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                          3,791,391
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                         (2,591,391)
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                           (7,941,844)
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              4,803,856
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>