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

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY        CERTIFICATION

I,
E. Follin Smith, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Baltimore Gas and Electric 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:



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):



Date:
March 3, 2006

|/s/E. FOLLIN SMITH                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32(a)



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of The Bank of New York Company, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 9, 2004



/s/    THOMAS A. RENYIName: Thomas A. Renyi Title: Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



-1-
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1422** 

WILLIAM JOHNNY MARTIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv - 00032

- RLV )

Submitted : December 19, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michelle Fecio, Paul B. Eaglin, OLINSKY LAW GROUP, Syracuse, New York, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Marc D. Epstein, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Paul Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Johnny Martin appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Martin v. Colvin , No. 5:14

- cv - 00032

- RLV (W.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2015). 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
EXHIBIT 23.1





                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




Board of Directors and Stockholders
Barringer Technologies Inc.


     We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration
Statements Nos.  33-78888 and 333-11629 of Barringer  Technologies Inc. on Forms
S-3 and  Registration  Statements  Nos.  333-25573  and  333-35133  of Barringer
Technologies Inc. on Forms S-8, of our report dated February 9, 2000 relating to
the  consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Barringer  Technologies
Inc. and subsidiaries  appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                                                BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Woodbridge, New Jersey
March 24, 2000
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136507 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136507 COA: 283732 Genesee CC: 02-010963-FC BARRY JOHN STIFF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York Respondent, v Thomas Lee, Appellant.

Submitted July 23, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### In the Matter of Luis Roman, Appellant, v Paul Clyne, as Albany County District Attorney, et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 471]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered November 6, 2003 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondents to dismiss the indictment against him.

Finding no proof that petitioner complied with the requirements of CPL 190.50 (5) (a), the County Court of Albany County denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. Dissatisfied with that decision, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 *1160proceeding in which he sought an order compelling the dismissal of the indictment. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner appeals. While styled a petition for mandamus to compel, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner was seeking an order prohibiting his prosecution.

Initially, it would not now be possible to prohibit this completed prosecution *(see Matter of Collins v Lamont,*273 AD2d 528, 530 [2000]), so the matter must be dismissed as moot. Moreover, petitioner may not obtain CPLR article 78 collateral review of County Court’s decision *(see id.*at 529-530), and we have reviewed County Court’s decision on defendant’s direct appeal and found no error *(see People v Roman,*19 AD3d 739, 740-741 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 809 [2005]).

Mercure, J.E, Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                      REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Michael Baker Corporation:

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated March 17, 2003 appearing in the 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders of
Michael Baker Corporation (which report and consolidated financial statements
are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K) also included
an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in Item 15(a)(2) of this
Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 17, 2003
#### Brown *v.*Pond and others.

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

November, 1880.)

Whore the *prmcvpe*directing the clerk to issue summons in an action for “statutory penalty; amount claimed, $80,000,” is followed by the service of such a summons on the defendant, who was first informed of the nature of the plaintiffs claim in an affidavit accompanying an order extending plaintiff’s time to serve a complaint:

*Held,*that a motion made to set aside the summons must be granted for the same reasons that apply in the case between the same parties heretofore decided, *[supra,*31.]

*Charles N. Judson*and *E. H. Bien,*for defendants.

*Kobbe á Fowler,*for plaintiff.

Choate, D. J.

This is like the case between the same parties decided to-day, *\supra,*31,] except that the complaint has been served. The *prcecipe*directs the clerk to issue summons in an action for “statutory penalty; amount claimed, $80,000.” It is shown by affidavit, and is not contradicted, that the defendant was first informed of the nature of the plaintiffs claim on the sixteenth of June, 1880, upon the service of an affidavit accompanying an order extending plaintiff’s time to serve his complaint. This motion to set aside the summons was made on the twenty-first of June.

For the reasons stated in the other case between the same parties the motion must be granted.
[879 NYS2d 283]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Dreyden, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 9, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Steven Banks*and *John Schoeffel*of counsel), for appellant. *Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,*Brooklyn *(Leonard Joblove*and *Morgan J. Dennehy*of counsel), for respondent.

*35OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01) in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging him with said offense as well as unlawful possession of marihuana (Penal Law § 221.05). On appeal, he challenges for the first time the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument as it relates to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, alleging, inter alia, that the “conclusory” reference in the factual part to the weapon in question as a gravity knife was insufficient *(cf. Matter of Rodney J.,*83 NY2d 503, 507 [1994]).

In our opinion, the accusatory instrument did not have to contain the detailed definition set forth in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), nor did it have to state that the knife was operational, as the term “gravity knife” is self defining *(see People v William,*191 Misc 2d 293 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 682 [2002]). While proof that the object was a gravity knife, as that term is defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), and that it was operational is required for conviction *(see People v Zuniga,*303 AD2d 773, 774 [2003]), such detailed allegations *are*unnecessary to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an accusatory instrument *(see*CPL 100.15, 100.40; *People v Casey,*95 NY2d 354 [2000]; *William,*191 Misc 2d 293 [2002]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, EJ., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Mark Russell, Respondent.

Submitted April 29, 2013;

decided June 6, 2013

Motion to vacate this Court’s April 2, 2013 dismissal order granted *[see*21 NY3d 910 (2013)].
<PAGE>


                                BASE TEN SYSTEMS, INC.
                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


The following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Registrant:


                                                       STATE OR JURISDICTION
                              NAME                        OR ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Ten Aerospace and Communications, Inc.                 New Jersey (a)

Base Ten Software, Inc.                                     New Jersey (a)

Base Ten Systems, Ltd.                                      United Kingdom (a)

Base Ten of Canada, Ltd.                                    Canada (b)

Base Ten Investment, Co.                                    Delaware (b)

Base Ten International Sales, Ltd.                          Jamaica (a)

Base Ten Software, Ltd.                                     Ireland (a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Financial statements included in Consolidated 
    Financial Statements of Registrant
(b) Dormant
Number of Revenues Percentage of Mean Median

Gaming Revenue Range Operations (in thousands) Operations Revenues (in thousands) (in thousands)

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2011$250 million and over 23 $10,421,992 5.5% 38.4% $453,130 $378,397

$100 million to $250 million 55 $9,065,678 13.1% 33.4% $164,831 $156,252

$50 million to $100 million 52 $3,639,595 12.4% 13.4% $69,992 $66,151$25 million to $50 million 55 $1,902,860 13.1% 7.0% $34,597 $32,784$10 million to $25 million 98 $1,629,551 23.3% 6.0% $16,628 $15,753$3 million to $10 million 70 $413,441 16.6% 1.5% $5,906 $5,525Under $3 million 68 $80,691 16.2% 0.3% $1,187 $1,010

Total 421 $27,153,807

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2010$250 million and over 21 $10,009,379 5.0% 37.8% $476,637 $377,728$100 million to $250 million 53 $8,685,402 12.6% 32.8% $163,876 $156,824$50 million to $100 million 53 $3,756,504 12.6% 14.2% $70,877 $65,898$25 million to $50 million 61 $2,091,904 14.5% 7.9% $34,294 $32,550$10 million to $25 million 88 $1,435,762 20.9% 5.4% $16,315 $15,641$3 million to $10 million 72 $444,384 17.1% 1.7% $6,172 $6,102Under $3 million 74 $79,198 17.5% 0.3% $1,070 $839

Total 422 $26,502,533

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2009$250 million and over 21 $10,256,700 5.0% 38.7% $488,414 $387,003$100 million to $250 million 50 $8,167,831 11.9% 30.8% $163,357 $158,652$50 million to $100 million 52 $3,707,540 12.4% 14.0% $71,299 $70,729$25 million to $50 million 67 $2,384,381 16.0% 9.0% $35,588 $33,474$10 million to $25 million 90 $1,473,178 21.5% 5.6% $16,369 $15,900$3 million to $10 million 68 $415,275 16.2% 1.6% $6,107 $6,174Under $3 million 71 $77,542 16.9% 0.3% $1,092 $779

Total 419 $26,482,447

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2008$250 million and over 23 $11,197,566 5.7% 41.9% $486,851 $415,966$100 million to $250 million 47 $7,764,163 11.6% 29.0% $165,195 $164,918$50 million to $100 million 52 $3,605,181 12.8% 13.5% $69,330 $67,054$25 million to $50 million 66 $2,286,574 16.3% 8.6% $34,645 $32,179$10 million to $25 million 85 $1,409,292 21.0% 5.3% $16,580 $16,214$3 million to $10 million 69 $408,109 17.0% 1.5% $5,915 $5,867Under $3 million 63 $67,941 15.6% 0.3% $1,078 $908

Total 405 $26,738,826

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2007$250 million and over 22 $10,999,559 5.6% 42.1% $499,980 $417,707$100 million to $250 million 47 $7,807,413 12.0% 29.9% $166,115 $158,777$50 million to $100 million 46 $3,281,581 11.8% 12.6% $71,339 $71,113$25 million to $50 million 58 $2,070,824 14.8% 7.9% $35,704 $33,423$10 million to $25 million 90 $1,529,902 23.0% 5.9% $16,999 $16,192$3 million to $10 million 67 $396,957 17.1% 1.5% $5,925 $5,699Under $3 million 61 $57,236 15.6% 0.2% $938 $755

Total 391 $26,143,472

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and enteredby the NIGC through 6/20/2012. NIGC Tribal Gaming Revenues
Exhibit 32(f)

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







|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of each of the Companies for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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 each Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of each respective Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in each Report.









/s/ E. Renae Conley 			E. Renae Conley
President and Chief Executive Officer-Louisiana of 
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and Chair of the Board, President,
and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Louisiana, LLC




Date:	March 9, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7277

JAMES LEE PRIMES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-939-BR)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lee Primes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Primes v. Smith, No. CA-95-939-BR

(E.D.N.C. July 17, 1996). 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
**Exhibit 10.9****2007 ATS Medical Management Incentive Compensation Plan (MICP)**The 2007 ATS Medical Management Incentive Compensation Plan (MICP or Plan) is designed to pay,in addition to performance based annual salaries, incentive cash compensation to management andother “key employees” who by their assigned responsibilities contribute to the success of theCompany. Incentive payments will be based on corporate funding and achievement of individualObjectives/Smart Goals.**1.****DEFINITION OF TERMS****Goals**The Individual Objectives, as set forth at the beginning of each program year and referredto as Smart Goals, must be *specific, measurable, achievable, related to Corporate Goals andtime bound.*The Board of Directors may amend the goals to reflect material adjustments inor changes to the Company’s accounting policies; to reflect major corporate changes such asmergers, acquisitions, or divestitures; and to reflect such other events having asignificant impact on the goals.**Base Salary**The annual salary rates effective on the first day of the program year.**Participant**Any employee or position which has been designated by the Board as a participant in the Planfor the year or during the year. If a particular employee is not covered by the MICP andhas been recognized for extraordinary achievement, he/she may be eligible to participate inthe Plan for that particular year at the discretion of the President/CEO.**Eligibility**Only regular full time employees may be designated as a participant in the Plan.**Program Year**The fiscal year of the corporation.**Funding**The total dollar amounts accrued for payment in any program year. The bonus pool will befunded by achievement of the Company’s annual operating plan and will be tied to both topline and bottom line results.**Payout**The actual amount to be paid to a participant based on operating results achievement ratecombined with individual Smart Goals performance. The maximum payout each participant iseligible to receive will be communicated by his/her Manager.
 

 
**2.****DESIGNATION OF PARTICIPANTS**The Board, upon the recommendation of the management of the Corporation, shall make alldeterminations as to the eligibility of employees and positions to participate in the MICP.Following the Board’s determination of eligible participants, each participant shall benotified of eligibility to participate in the 2007 MICP and will be provided with a copy ofthe Plan. The 2007 Plan is designed to include officer, director, and manager levelpositions as well as employee designated as “key employees.”**3.****CALCULATION AND PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE AWARDS**Individual incentives will not be paid unless the President/CEO and the CompensationCommittee of the Board of Directors approve each participant’s individual incentive awardswith payout contingent upon completion of the Company’s year-end financial audit for theprogram year.**PLAN CRITERIA****Achievement of Smart Goals**
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20321 Summary Calendar

DAVID LEE COOK, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-93-2421

- - - - - - - - - - September 26, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Lee Cook, Texas prisoner #435179, appeals the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. Cook argues that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him at trial and that the prosecutor’s comments constituted misconduct that rendered his trial fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We haveNo. 96-20321 - 2 - reviewed the record and the brief and have found no reversible error. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cook v. Johnson , No. CA-H-93-2421 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 1996). AFFIRMED.
fif "TvixtS »«

(\ -v i £*i\FD4Jy RECEIVED IN

JUL 10 2015 ^ JUL 10 2015 ^

v^ -vu/ 433H

Abel Acosta, Clerk ^ B. &0\S" Abel Acosta, Clerk

^ Mo, \?>o533>MD J^J Cjood- of Jtffttis Mo. D3L-I3-005SU-CIC

"T&o TUe> CU/c\c of -fU, £up<e£/>ne Cooai (Coxi ©f Ge^/W

Ik- Appdl»ol> (Aatk LftsiO fe/L aO uu4& cJUlW ^elid- £*„ kh

Qtewi j^i ooUpftlai^b/ ^ cox* of A?f^ls ^ -tu.

/Ml „ 7 ,K,C" -Motion ibt i?pLa' -/ vc . , ^^ '^/ ^/,AJ4

>0h« s/Jt