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



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert S. Prather, Jr., certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bull Run Corporation;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 as
of November 30, 2004 (the Evaluation Date) and presented in this quarterly report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; andc)
    disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting. Date:
    
    January 11, 2005Signed:
    
    /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.Robert S. Prather, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6290
DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAN BRAXTON; MAJOR FLEMING; S. MULLINS, Lieutenant; RON FOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1126-7) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Edward Crawley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Crawley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. SeeDomino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on June 2, 2009, Room T2-B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

                    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:                     *Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 12 p.m.-1 p.m.*

The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

                    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (                    *Telephone:*                     301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 6, 2008, (73 FR 58268-58269).                

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

Dated: May 7, 2009.

Cayetano Santos,

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

[FR Doc. E9-11260 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3922 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3922

   To clarify the status of the Young Women's Christian Association 
  Retirement Fund as a defined contribution plan for certain purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2006

Ms. Murkowski (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Akaka) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To clarify the status of the Young Women's Christian Association 
  Retirement Fund as a defined contribution plan for certain purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``YWCA Retirement Plan Preservation 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AGE DISCRIMINATION RULES.

    (a) In General.--A pension plan described in subsection (b) shall 
be treated as a defined contribution plan for purposes of sections 
204(b)(1)(H) and 204(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(b)(1)(H) and 1054(b)(2)) and section 
4(i)(1) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 
623(i)(1)).
    (b) Pension Plan Described.--A pension plan described in this 
subsection is the plan subject to title IV of the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974 maintained by the Young Women's Christian 
Association Retirement Fund, a corporation created by an Act of the 
State of New York which became law on April 12, 1924.
    (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply in the case of any 
civil action brought on or after September 21, 2006, alleging a 
violation occurring before June 29, 2005, of section 204(b)(1)(H) of 
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
1054(b)(1)(H)), section 4(i)(1) of the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623(i)(1)), or both, with respect to the plan 
described in subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
#### Williams *v.*The Greenwich Insurance Company.

This case is no exception to the general rule that the first grant of a new trial will not be interfered with.

April 16, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Complaint on fire policy. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus. January term, 1893.

Peabody, Brannon, Hatcher & Martin, for plaintiff.

Jackson & Leftwich, for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4093 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4093

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a 
suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are 
                  eligible for guaranteed assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH BORROWERS ARE 
              ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE.

    Section 5102 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 1949 note; Public Law 107-171) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.

            Passed the Senate December 6, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4093

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a 
suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are 
                  eligible for guaranteed assistance.
```
##### 



Exhibit No. 99.1 For immediate release
 FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC. AGREES TO SELL
THE FAIRMONT GLITTER BAY
- Sale Generates Proceeds of $31 million and a Gain of $8 million - TORONTO, July 14, 2004- Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR or the
Company) (TSX/NYSE: FHR) today announced that it has sold The Fairmont
Glitter Bay in Barbados to a group of investors for approximately $31 million,
or $620,000 per room, resulting in an after tax gain of about $8 million. The
new owners intend to renovate and develop the property. The resort continues
to be managed by FHR as The Fairmont Glitter Bay. In 1998, we acquired our initial interest in The Fairmont Glitter Bay as part
of the Princess Hotels transaction. The propertys size, its need for
renovation and the complicated ownership structure with privately-owned
condominiums precipitated this sale, commented William R. Fatt, Chief
Executive Officer of FHR. We will maintain ownership of the recently
renovated Fairmont Royal Pavilion on the fabled Gold Coast in Barbados as well
as the adjacent block of undeveloped beach front land, which has significant
future development potential. About Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc.
FHR is one of North Americas leading owner/operators of luxury hotels and
resorts. FHRs managed portfolio consists of 82 luxury and first-class
properties with more than 33,000 guestrooms in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Bermuda, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. FHR owns Fairmont
Hotels Inc., North Americas largest luxury hotel management company, as
measured by rooms under management, with 44 distinctive city center and resort
hotels such as The Fairmont San Francisco, The Fairmont Banff Springs and The
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess. FHR also owns Delta Hotels, Canadas largest
first-class hotel management company, which manages and franchises 38 city
center and resort properties in Canada. In addition to hotel management, FHR
holds real estate interests in 22 properties and an approximate 35% investment
interest in Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns 24
properties. -30- Investors:
    
    Media:Emma Thompson
    
    Laura FairweatherExecutive Director Investor Relations
    
    Executive Director Public RelationsTel: 416.874.2485
    
    Tel: 416.874.2404Email: investor@fairmont.com
    
    Email: communications@fairmont.comWebsite: www.fairmont.com/investor
    
    Website: www.fairmont.com
#### Skilled Investors, Inc., Plaintiff, v Bank Julius Baer & Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. Bank Julius Baer *&*Co., Ltd., Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Menachem Ivcher et al., Defendants, and Eclectic Holdings, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 30, 2009;

decided January 19, 2010

Reported below, 62 AD3d 424 (Case No. 31).

*935Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         337,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,667,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                   688,744
<INVENTORY>                                 15,332,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,850,124
<PP&E>                                       7,680,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,985,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,459,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,256,692
<BONDS>                                      8,754,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       153,394
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,114,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,459,948
<SALES>                                     77,825,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,825,788
<CGS>                                       62,462,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,462,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                48,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             348,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,169,387
<INCOME-TAX>                                   491,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            678,287
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   678,287
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3896 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3896

To provide for the return of the Fresnel Lens to the lantern room atop 
    Presque Isle Light Station Lighthouse, Michigan, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2006

Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the return of the Fresnel Lens to the lantern room atop 
    Presque Isle Light Station Lighthouse, Michigan, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light 
Station Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. RETURN OF FRESNEL LENS TO PRESQUE ISLE LIGHT STATION 
              LIGHTHOUSE, MICHIGAN.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard shall modify the 2004 Agreement for Outgoing Loans (AOL) 
with Presque Isle Township, Michigan, in order to provide for the 
return of the Historic Fresnel Lens to the lantern room atop the 
Presque Isle Light Station Lighthouse, Michigan.
    (b) Conditions.--
            (1) Compliance with applicable law.--Any modification under 
        subsection (a) of the Agreement for Outgoing Loans described in 
        that subsection shall comply with applicable provisions of 
        section 5506 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
        1997 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-518), relating to the 
        conveyance of the Presque Isle Light Station.
            (2) Retention of ownership of lens.--Notwithstanding the 
        return of the Historic Fresnel Lens pursuant to subsection (a), 
        the United States shall retain ownership of the lens.
            (3) Continuing operation of aid to navigation.--
        Notwithstanding the return of the Historic Fresnel Lens 
        pursuant to subsection (a), the active aid to navigation, 
        together with associated electronic and lighthouse equipment, 
        at Presque Isle Light Station Lighthouse shall continue to be 
        operated and maintained by the United States within the 
        Historic Third Order Fresnel Lens at the Presque Isle Light 
        Station Lighthouse.
                                 <all>
```
#### The County of Walton *v.*Powell & Davenport.

Persons contracting with a public officer, such as an ordinary, must take notice of the limitations imposed by law upon his power to contract. Hence where, upon its face, a written contract for the hire of misdemeanor convicts, made between the ordinary and the hirers, is legal, parol evidence is inadmissible, in an action to enforce the contract, to show that by private understanding with the ordinary the hirers were to be allowed to work the convicts in some illegal manner or in some avocation in which they could not, under the law, be worked or employed. That the hirers, with or without the consent of the ordinary, violated the law in the working or treatment of the convicts, would furnish no reason for not paying the hire at the rate stipulated in the contract.

July 23, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*647Action on account. Before Judge Hutchins. Walton superior court. August term, 1898.

The account sued on was for the hire of convicts. Defendants pleaded the general issue; there was a verdict in their favor, and plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The motion alleged, in addition to the general grounds, that the court erred in admitting, over objection, oral testimony to show the understanding between the ordinary of the county and defendant Powell, as to where and at what work the convicts were to be worked, and the conversation between them relative thereto, at the time the written contract in evidence was signed by them and prior to the signing of it. The contract was a lease of county convicts in 1883 (extended by agreement to subsequent years). It stated that the ordinary leased to Powell & Davenport “all the persons convicted in the superior and county courts of said county for the year 1883 and turned over to said ordinary, to carry into execution such sentences as confined them to hard labor on the public works or elsewhere as said ordinary can lawfully do, authorizing and directing the use and employment of such convicts in that class of labor as shall not imperil reasonably the health of such convicts, in the county of Gfreene or other county within said State,” etc. The lessees agreed, among other things, “to receive such convicts and to work’them at hard labor for the period of their respective sentences, in compliance with the law.” It was further alleged that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: “If you believe from the evidence that there was an agreement and understanding between the parties that it was lawful to work the convicts on private work, as on this farm or other place, or otherwise than in a chaingang on the public works, and that they would be so worked, then no matter how justly, in morals, the defendants maybe indebted to the county, it cannot recover. If the con*648tract, as agreed and understood, was that the convicts were to be worked elsewhere and otherwise than in a chaingang or the public works, it is an illegal contract, and the law will not enforce it, and the plaintiff cannot recover.”

Henry D. McDaniel, for plaintiff.
Exhibit 32.1





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 annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date: October 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Gregory L. PaigeGregory L. PaigeChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.