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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

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 makethe 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and 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 Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and we have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent 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 financialreporting, to the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 20, 2007
#### Lucy Cooke et al., Appellants, v Hamlet Silijkovic, Defendant, and Aurel Rosu, Also Known as Rosu Aurel, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 793]

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine title to real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), dated February 4, 2008, as denied, without prejudice to renew, those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the affirmative defenses of lack of privity and lack of consideration asserted in the answer of the defendant Aurel Rosu, also known as Rosu Aurel.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the affirmative defenses of lack of privity and lack of consideration asserted in the answer of the defendant Aurel Rosu, also known as Rosu Aurel, are granted.

Since lack of privity and lack of consideration do not constitute cognizable defenses to the causes of action asserted against the defendant Aurel Rosu, also known as Rosu Aurel, the Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were to dismiss those affirmative defenses. Skelos, J.R, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         418,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 429,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,491
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     362,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   429,568
<SALES>                                        265,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,608,642
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               113,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,258,315
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (129,068)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,129,247
<EPS-BASIC>                                     151.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   151.42


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11092]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6609]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ron Arad: No Discipline''

    Summary: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ron Arad: No Discipline,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about August 2, 2009, until on or 
about October 19, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.
    For Further Information Contact: For further information, including 
a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: May 6, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-11092 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Wayne Curtis SIRON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-1605.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2006.

Wayne Curtis Siron, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, Randolph L. Hutter, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Donald L. Korb, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Curtis Siron appeals from the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency in Siron’s 1998 income taxes and assessing penalties. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. *Siron v.*
      *528
      *Comm’r.,*Tax Ct. No. 11208-04, 2006 WL 859174 (U.S. Tax Ct. Apr. 4, 2006). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
##### 



Exhibit 13.2
 Certification of the Principal Financial Officer of
Videotron Ltd.
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
  /s/ Yvan GingrasName: Yvan Gingras
Title: Executive Vice President, Finance and Operations and
         Chief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8043** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distri ct of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Matthew J. Perry, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:03

- cv - 03299

- MJP )

Submitted : F ebruary 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curi am opinion
. Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Owen Harriot see ks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or j udge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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) (2006) . A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the d istrict court is likewise debatable. Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harriot h as 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

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 makethe 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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 oursupervision, 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 thisreport 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 theregistrant’s most recent 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

a) Allsignificant 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 financialinformation; 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
#### Jeroline Deloris MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENRICO COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1865.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2006.

*517Jeroline Deloris Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Thomas Tokarz II, County Attorney’s Office, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jeroline Deloris Morris appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We dismiss Morris’ appeal of the district court’s March 15, 2006 order for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely. Morris’ notice of appeal was filed on July 14, 2006, which was beyond the thirty-day appeal period. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Regarding Morris’ appeal of the district court’s June 28, 2006 order, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Morris v. Henrico County Pub. Schs.,*No. 3:06-cv-00051-REP (E.D. Va. June 28, 2006). We deny Morris’ motion to appoint counsel and 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
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 Quarterly Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold R. Wolcott, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby 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; and




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







/s/ Harold R. WolcottHarold R. WolcottPresident (Principal Executive Officer)July 14, 2011
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 785 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the small refiner 

exception to the oil depletion deduction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mrs. LINCOLN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the small refiner exception to the oil depletion deduction.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF SMALL REFINER EXCEP4 TION TO OIL DEPLETION DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 613A(d) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limita7 tions on application of subsection (c)) is amended to read 

8 as follows: 

9 ‘‘(4) CERTAIN REFINERS EXCLUDED.—If the 

10 taxpayer or 1 or more related persons engages in the 
2

•S 785 IS

1 refining of crude oil, subsection (c) shall not apply 

2 to the taxpayer for a taxable year if the average 

3 daily refinery runs of the taxpayer and such persons 

4 for the taxable year exceed 75,000 barrels. For pur5 poses of this paragraph, the average daily refinery 

6 runs for any taxable year shall be determined by di7 viding the aggregate refinery runs for the taxable 

8 year by the number of days in the taxable year.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,465-02
EX P ARTE DAVID DERON JONES, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 139216301010 IN THE 351 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance by fra ud and sentenc ed to two year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his tria l c ounsel rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e bec ause she failed to challeng e the evidenc e and allowed h i m t o p l ea d guilty to an offe nse for which he was not charg ed. See A very

v. State , 359 S.W .3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).2

The trial court has determ i ned that trial counsel' s perf ormanc e was defic ient and that such defic ient perf

ormanc e pre

judiced Applica

nt and the State agree s. This Court has rec ently decide d
a case with simil ar fac ts and circ umstances. Ex parte Lewis , WR -83,458-01 & WR -83,458-02,

__ S.W .3d __ (Tex. Crim. App. Sep. 27, 2017). Relief is g rante d based on the analy sis enumer ated in Lewis
. The judgme nt in Cause No. 321010351 in the 351 Dis t ri ct C o u rt of Har ris County is set st aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to answe r the charg es
as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within 10 day s afte r the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of th is o pinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Novembe r 1, 2017 Do not publish
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-24-0000275

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
HYE JA CHOI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOREAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH; REX KIM; IRIS KIM; DANIEL CHANG; DIANA CHANG; ANNA KIM; JOSEPH KIM; SONG K. (KUN) CHOI; KRIS CHOO; MI KYEONG KIM; SUN YOUNG KIM; NAOMI LIM; HUNG JA KWAK; SUNG OK KIM; ESTHER KWON; SYLVIA GILLESPIE; JIN YU; SERA SUNG; MYOUNG STEMPIN; SOO JIN CHIKASUYE; YOUNG AE HAN; HANNAH CHANG,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-22-0001662)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before June 10, 2024, and July 9, 2024, respectively;

(2) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Hye Ja Choi (Choi) failed to file either document, or request an extension of time; (3) On July 12, 2024, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Choi that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on July 22, 2024, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Choi could request relief from default by motion; and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-24-0000275 01-AUG-2024 08:06 AM Dkt. 23 ODSDNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Choi has not taken any further action in this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 1, 2024. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

2
Exhibit 23.01



                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-54138) pertaining to The Life Re Corporation Stock
Investment Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80251)
pertaining to The Life Re Corporation Stock Option Plan and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80737) pertaining to The Life Re
Corporation 1993 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of our report
dated February 4, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Life Re Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.




                                          /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
March 26, 1997