alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, PAUL J. EVANSON, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY.

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(s) 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(s) 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | /s/    PAUL J.
EVANSON                     
|Date: February 28, 2006 |  |  |  | Paul J. Evanson Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Akio Ariura, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMDL, Inc. for the period ended March31, 2007; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s first fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: May 21, 2007     /s/ Akio Ariura Akio Ariura  Chief Financial Officer
### \Vrit ofMandamus Denied, Opinion issued September 12, 2012

In The 

## <!rourt of .Appeals lffifth IDistrict of Wcxas at IDallas 

# . No. 05-12-01214-CV

IN RE ANDREW DAVID MALONE, JR., Relator Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F86-95910-QN



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justice Morris, Richter, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Morris In this original mandamus proceeding, relator contends the trial court has violated a ministerial duty by failing to rule on relator's motion forjudgment nunc pro tunc seeking credit for timerelator spentinjailbefore he was sentenced. Basedonthe record before the.Court, weconclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the reliefrequested. See Simon v. Levario, 

### 306 S.W.3d 

### 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 

### 2009) (orig. proceeding); State ofTex. ex rei. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 

### 34 S.W.3d 

### 924,927-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

### 2001) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ ofmandamus.

# ~6.h.-_· JOSi.MORRis TICE 

### 121214F.P05
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000069968
<NAME> NATIONAL CITY BANCORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          52,271
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    133,897
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          41,255
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            41,569
<LOANS>                                        766,109
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,025,682
<DEPOSITS>                                     517,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                   210,761
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,315
<LONG-TERM>                                    139,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,077
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,025,682
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 73,040
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,443
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,092
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                85,575
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,393
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,023
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           47,552
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,890
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 28,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,855
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      25,855
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,664
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.15
<LOANS-NON>                                     17,432
<LOANS-PAST>                                         4
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   235
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 13,741
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,283
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,444
<RECOVERIES>                                        56
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,785
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,781
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                247
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            757



</TABLE>
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

JAY DEWAYNE WARD 09-00121-002

10711-003

3-31-2010

Pro Se

✔

✔

151 121 months

3-31-2010

2-26-2015

11-1-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.02.26 12:44:38 -06'00'

Case 1:09-cr-00121-CG-B Document 117 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 1
No. 87-1257.

#### Sobony *v.*Tilberry.

Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

#### **Pursuant toSection 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. §7241)**

 

I, W. Don Cornwell,certify that:

 

1)     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Granite Broadcasting Corporation;

 

2)     Based on myknowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

 

3)     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4)     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5)     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: November 10, 2005

 
|   | /s/ W. DON  CORNWELL     |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | W. Don Cornwell          |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE TAYLOR, AIS # 193913, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0079-WS-N

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

DONE this 23rd day of March, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00079-WS-N Document 12 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 1
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10792

Conference Calendar

__________________

PRESTON BRIGGS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JACK HAMPTON, Judge; 

JOHN VANCE; MATT FRY,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-1040-T

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that Preston Briggs's motions for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel are

DENIED, because his appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Appellant's brief does not challenge the basis of the
No. 95-10792

-2-

district court's dismissal of his case: that he could not bring

a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit because the criminal conviction that was

challenged had not been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or

called into question by the issuance of a federal writ of habeas

corpus. Nor does appellant challenge the district court's

determination that Defendants Vance and Hampton are entitled to

absolute immunity from suit for damages.

We caution Briggs that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Briggs is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court. 

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Assessment of Examiners’ Toolmark Categorization Accuracy

Keyword(s): Toolmarks, firearms, class characteristics, subclass, 

Submitting subcommittee(s): Firearms and Toolmarks Date Approved:

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background Information:

1. Description of research need:

We are unaware of any study that assess the overall firearm and toolmark discipline’s ability to 

correctly/consistently categorize evidence by class characteristics, identify subclass marks.

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

n/a

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Past validation studies have focused on the firearm and toolmark discipline’s overall ability to correctly 

identify items using individual characteristics. We are unaware of any studies that focused on the 

discipline to correctly characterize class characteristics and eliminate samples. Additionally, we are 

unaware of any studies that assess examiner accuracy in recognizing subclass characteristics.

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

Understanding the overall accuracy of class and subclass characteristic categorization will guide the 

subcommittee with writing our testing and examination standards.

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

Further studies assessing and documenting the accuracy of examiners will help the justice system 

assess the overall error rates of the toolmark examinations.

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): III Major gap in 

current 

knowledge

Minor gap in 

current 

knowledge
Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

No or limited

current research 

is being conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval date: 5/4/2018

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

SAC

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes x No

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes x No

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date: 5/4/2018

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)
Exhibit 10(ii)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NOTE-HOLDER              ORIGINAL AMOUNT     MATURITY DATE
                                           OF NOTE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Walter L. Koon, Jr.            $167,426.65     February 15, 1998
     Indiana University Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           John W. Biddinger             $93,333.06      February 15, 1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Robert A. Davies             $124,469.18     February 15, 1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            John Cederdahl               $799,655.11     February 15, 1998
         Bankers National Life
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            John Cederdahl              $3,821,912.77    February 15, 1998
Western National Life Insurance Company
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Jan Chenowith               $265,200.00     February 15, 1998
          Dan Young IRA Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 07-13-00408-CR

Michelle Lorraine Lehman From the County Court at Law No. 2

Appellant of Ellis County

v. September 8, 2014

The State of Texas Opinion by Justice Pirtle

Appellee §

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated September 8, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgments of the trial court be modified to delete the

order to pay $600 for attorney’s fees and as modified, the judgments are affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have already been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  R USSELLA LLEN N ORDYKE ; A NN S ALLIE N ORDYKE , dba TS Trade Shows; J ESS B. G UY ; D UANE D ARR ; W ILLIAM J. J ONES ; D ARYLN. D AVID ; T ASIANA W ESTYSCHYN ; J EAN L EE ; T ODD B ALTES ; D ENNIS B LAIR , R.L. A DAMS ; R OGERB AKER ; M IKE No. 07-15763 F OURNIER ; V IRGILM C V ICKER , D.C. No.



#  Plaintiffs-Appellants, CV-99-04389-MJJ

v. ORDER M ARY V. K ING ; G AIL S TEELE ; W ILMA C HAN ; K EITH C ARSON ; S COTT H AGGERTY ; C OUNTY OF A LAMEDA ; C OUNTY OFA LAMEDA B OARD OFS UPERVISORS ,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Filed July 29, 2009

ORDER

KOZINSKI , Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

10273PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.