alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Leo P. Denault, certify that:1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy 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 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 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;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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.
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 (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; andb) 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/ Leo P. DenaultLeo P. Denault
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Entergy Corporation
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	March 9, 2004
Exhibit 21

	The seven registrants, Entergy Corporation, System Energy Resources, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., are listed below (for a list of the remaining direct and indirect subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation, with the exception of certain subsidiaries that in the aggregate would not constitute a "significant subsidiary," see Exhibit 1 to Entergy Corporation's Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 filing made in File No. 70-9123 on February 24, 2005):

  
State or Other
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2030

TORNELLO FONTAINE PIERCE EL BEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOSH STEIN; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JAMES ALLEN JOINES; SHERIFF WILLIAM T. SCHATZMAN; BJ BARNES, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; NANCY VAUGHAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00539

- FDW

- DCK )

Submitted : January 2, 2018 Decided: January 11, 2018

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey , Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh North Carolina; James R. Morgan, Jr. , WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina; Lonnie Glenn Albright, III , FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE , Greensboro, North Carolina ; Ja mes Demarest Secor, III , Greensboro, North Carolina ; Polly D. Sizemore , CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL2 DEPARTMENT , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Tornello Fontaine Pier ce El Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce El Bey ’ s informal brief
does not raise any specific challenge to the basis for the district court’s disposition of the
merits of his claims , Pierce El Bey has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *
See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accord ingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* We conclude that the district court had subject

- matter jurisdiction as Pierce El Bey’s false arrest claim should have been raised pursu ant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We further reject Pierce El Bey’s conclusory assertion that the district judge was biased. See Belue v. Leventhal , 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,837]


Duro Textiles, LLC, Fall River, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on April 22, 2009, in response 
to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Duro 
Textiles, LLC, Fall River, Massachusetts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13457 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Lijo Panghat, M.D., Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.

Submitted March 12, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order dismissing the appeal from the July 2010 Supreme Court order, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
Exhibit 10.3

AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this Amendment), dated as of the 27th day of March, 2007 by and among COMFORCE
Corporation (COMFORCE) a Delaware corporation, and COMFORCE Operating, Inc. (COI), a Delaware corporation that is wholly-owned by COMFORCE (COMFORCE and COI are collectively referred to as the Employer), and Harry
V. Maccarrone, a resident of the State of New York (Employee).

WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement dated as of August 1, 2006 (the Agreement); and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement
as herein provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual obligations of the parties contained herein, and for other
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:



| | 1. | Section 4(a)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employees Base Salary for the 12 months ending March 31, 2008 shall be $363,484, and,
thereafter, shall increase annually during the Term on each April 1st, by the greater of (A) seven percent
(7%) or (B) the percentage increase in the Price Index (as defined below) for the most recently available month at the time of each such increase over the Price Index reported for the same month one year prior (such percentage
increase calculated pursuant to this Section 4(a) is referred to in this Agreement as the CPI Increase).



| | 2. | All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment on the day and year first above mentioned.



COMFORCE CORPORATIONBy:Its:




COMFORCE OPERATING, INC.By:Its:Harry V. Maccarrone
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             751
<SECURITIES>                                 1,180,376
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,208,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,183,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,208,862
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,964
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,964
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### ROBERTS ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLYMPIA SALES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-15368

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 23, 2006.

Dock Blanchard, Blanchard, Merriam, Adel *&*Kirkland, P.A., Ocala, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Hala A. Sandridge, Suzanne R. Eschrieh, Gayle Wrede Kirkpatrick, Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DUBINA, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Olympia Sales, Inc. (“Olympia”) appeals the district court’s judgment of voluntarily dismissal of Plaintiff Roberts Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Roberts”) lawsuit against Olympia without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Olympia contends that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice because Roberts delayed in moving for dismissal, Olympia had incurred significant legal expenses in defending the case, Olympia had filed a motion for summary judgment that was pending at the time of the dismissal, and Olympia was deprived by the dismissal without prejudice of a potential malicious prosecution claim against Roberts.

After review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Roberts’s motion for a voluntary dismissal on the condition that Roberts could not reassert the claims made in this lawsuit in another case without first paying Olympia $139,121.98 (the costs and attorneys’ fees Olympia incurred in defense of this lawsuit). *See Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*252 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FRESH CHOICE, INC.'S REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 26,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                           2,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      186
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,678
<PP&E>                                          45,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,526)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,291
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,254)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,857
<SALES>                                         74,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,071
<CGS>                                           18,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    255
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                255
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (70)
<NET-INCOME>                                       185
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-26-2005 

# U SA v . S hou gh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1443

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S hou gh" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 339. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/339NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 05- 1443

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L E ONAR D S HOUGH ,

Appel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. No. 0 4 - c r - 0 0 0 0 9 E) D is tr ic t J u d g e : H o n o ra b le M a u ri c e B . C o h ill, J r.

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober21, 2005 B e f o re : S M IT H , B E C K E R a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2005 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge . P u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t, ap p e llan t L e o n a rd S h o u g h e n ter e d a p lea o f g u iltyto2

th e f ir s t c o u n t o f

a n e ig h t- c o u n t in d ic tm e n t c h a rg in g h im w ith m a il a n d w ir e f ra u d . S ho ug h w as sent enced t o 8 4 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent fol l ow ed b ya t erm of thr ee y ears ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. A p p ell an t cha ll en g es h is sen tenc e u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. — , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , t he s ent ence havi ng been ba s ed i n par tupon fi ndi ngs m ade byt he D i s t r i c tC o u r ta s t o a m o u n to f l o s s a n d S h o u g h ’ s c o n d u c ti n a s s u m i n g a n o t h e r ’ s i d e n t i t y. H avi ng det erm i ned thatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues appel l antr ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand for r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( en banc ).
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18.
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Arabian American Development Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Connie
Cook, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.










/s/ Connie
Cook


Connie
Cook, Chief Accounting Officer




March 15,
2010



















A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,880
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,865,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,000
<INVENTORY>                                    18,108,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,315,242
<PP&E>                                         9,432,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,790,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,664,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,106,722
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,040,918
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,040,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,664,993
<SALES>                                        29,410,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          25,148,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,429,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,243,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (273,823)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,969,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,969,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-Q,  into NiSource Inc.'s  (formerly known
as NIPSCO Industries, Inc.) previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement No.
33-30619;  Form S-8 Registration  Statement No. 33-30621;  Form S-8 Registration
Statement No. 333-08263; Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-19981; Form S-8
Registration  Statement  No.  333-19983;  Form S-8  Registration  Statement  No.
333-19985;  Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-26847; Form S-8 Registration
Statement No. 333-59151; Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-59153; Form S-3
Registration  Statement  No.  333-69279;  Form S-8  Registration  Statement  No.
333-72367;  Form S-8 Registration Statement No.333-72401;  Form S-3 Registration
Statement No. 333-76645 and Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-76909.


                             /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois

August 13, 1999