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



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Charles Driscoll, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viscorp, Inc.



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-14 and 15d-14) 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer 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 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: February 22, 2007















/s/ Charles Driscoll





Charles Driscoll









President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Dekania Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H. Friedberg, 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; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ THOMAS H. FRIEDBERG
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Thomas H. Friedberg Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President
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 Dekania Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H. Friedberg, 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; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                                
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas H. Friedberg                        
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Thomas H. Friedberg                            
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
@article{1209636,
  author = {Alexander Kwiatkowski and Ezad Shojaee and Sristy Agrawal and Akira Kyle and Curtis Rau and Scott Glancy and Emanuel Knill},
  title = {Constraints on Gaussian Error Channels and Measurements for Quantum Communication},
  year = {2023},
  number = {107},
  month = {2023-04-10 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review A},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934797},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042604},
  language = {en},
}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

NELSON OTERO and MAXCIME

CAGAN, 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Criminal No. 11-23 (SRC)

ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter having come before the Court on the April 27, 2012 letter request, received

by this Court on May 1, 2012, in which pro se Defendant Nelson Otero (“Otero”) asks for

additional time to file an additional submission in connection with his motion for judgment of

acquittal; and Plaintiff the United States of America (the “Government”) having filed its

opposition to Otero’s motion on May 9, 2012; and the Court finding there is good cause to grant

Otero additional time as requested; therefore,

IT IS on this 11 day of May, 2012, th

ORDERED that pro se Defendant Nelson Otero shall file his response to the

Government’s opposition to his motion for judgment of acquittal on or before June 6, 2012.

 s/Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00023-SRC Document 96 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1906
NO.

DAVID BLAINE McKINLEY § IN THE COURT OF

§

v. § CRIMINAL APPEALS FILED IN

THE STATE OF TEXAS § OF TEXAS C0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 24 2015

ProSe Motion for Extension of Time Abel a

To File Petition for Discretionary Review C0s a'

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW the Appellant/Petitioner in the above-styled and numbered cause and

respectfully moves this Honorable Court to extend the time forfiling the Appellant's Petition for

Discretionary Review in this cause and in support thereof would show to the Court the

following:

1. The style and number of this case in the Court of Appeals, is: David Blaine

McKinley v. The State ofTexas. Appeal No. 10-14-00202-CR and 10-14-00203-CR.

2. The style and number ofthe case in the trial court is: The State ofTexas v. David

Blaine McKinley. Cause No. 37611-CR and 37612-CR from the 40th Judicial District Court of

Ellis County, Texas.

3. The Appellant was convicted of the felony offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse

of a Child, a First Degree Felony and Indecency with a child.

4. Judgment was entered on April 11, 2014 and punishment was assessed at 25

years confinement in the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice—Institutional Division.

5. The conviction was affirmed in the Court ofAppeals on July 2,2015.

PRO SE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - Page 1
6. The deadline for filing the Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review in this

cause is August 1,2015.

7. An extension oftime for a period ofsixty (60) days isrequested that would make

the due date August 31, 2015.

8. No prior request for an extension oftime has been made.

9. The facts relied upon to show good cause for the requested extension is, as

follows: The Appellant/Petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel during the appeal

ofthis case to the Court of Appeals. The Appellant/Pertioner has elected to proceed pro se.

Therefore, additional time is needed for the Appellant/Petitioner to either prepare and file the

Petition pro se or to seeklegal assistance in filing the Petition.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant /Petitioner respectfully

requests that this Honorable Court extend time for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review in

this cause to fib G^r 3 \ , 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

David ) Blaine McKinlev McKinley

TDCJ # 01926785

Stiles Unit

3060 FM 3514

Beaumont, Texas 77705

PRO SE MOTION FOR ANEXTENSION OF TIME TOFILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The Appellant/Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Motion has been mailed to the District Attorney, Appellate Division, Ellis County Courthouse,

109 S. Jackson Street, Waxahachie, Texas 75165, and mailed via U.S. mail, to the Office of the

State Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 12405, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711, on the II

day of.TVoly , 2015.

David Blaine McKinley T

PRO SE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - Page3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTA GIL-RABADO, AKA Martha

Olivia Gil, AKA Marta Gonzales,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71770

Agency No. A200-246-293

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Marta Gil-Rabado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

APR 29 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny

the petition for review.

Gil-Rabado does not challenge the agency’s determination that she did not

establish past persecution in Mexico. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if Gil-Rabado qualified for an exception for the

untimely filing of her asylum application, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that Gil-Rabado failed to establish that her fear of future

harm was objectively reasonable. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to “present compelling, objective evidence

demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). We reject Gil-Rabado’s

contention that the IJ applied an erroneous legal standard in concluding that her

fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d

336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (disagreement with result did not mean that agency

applied wrong legal standard). Thus, Gil-Rabado’s asylum claim fails.

Because Gil-Rabado has not established eligibility for asylum, she

necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

2 12-71770
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief

because Gil-Rabado failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-71770
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

 :

RICHARD SNYDER, :

: Civ. A. No. 11-0003 (NLH)(AMD)

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: ORDER

DIETZ & WATSON, INC., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 

This matter having come before the Court by way of motion of

Defendants, Dietz & Watson, Inc., Louis Eni, Jr. and Christopher

Eni, seeking dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6); and for the reasons expressed in the Opinion entered

on even date;

IT IS on this 22nd day of December 2011,

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion [Doc. No. 4] to dismiss

Plaintiff’s original complaint shall be, and is hereby, DISMISSED

AS MOOT; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion [Doc. No. 13] to dismiss

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims set forth in Counts I, II,

III, IV, and V of the amended complaint, as well as Plaintiff’s

Case 1:11-cv-00003-NLH-AMD Document 17 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 279
claim in Count VI that Defendants as escrow agents breached a

fiduciary duty shall be, and are hereby, DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims for conversion as set forth in

Count VII and breach of fiduciary duty based on Defendants’

failure to pay wages as set forth in Count VI shall be, and are

hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims in Count

VIII, IX and X shall remain in this case; and it is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within

twenty (20) days of entry of this Order. 

 s/ Noel L. Hillman 

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00003-NLH-AMD Document 17 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 280
#### UNITED STATES for Benefit of GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION v. W. E. O’NEIL CONST. CO. et al.

No. 6234.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Jan. 6, 1941.

*530S. A. Dearborn and J. I. Hanflig, both of Boston, Mass., and Jacob H. Tupman, of Lynn, Mass., for Geo. H. Ball Co.

C. Frank Hathaway, of Lynn, Mass., and Everett W. Crawford, of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

Harry C. Mamber and John V. Phelan, both of Lynn, Mass., for Ralph W. Bean.

T. W. Prince, and Mintz, Levin & Cohn, and Benjamin Levin, all of Boston, Mass., for National Iron Works, Inc.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

This action came on to be heard upon objections by the defendant to interrogatories of the intervenor. The objections stated are that “the petition to intervene was filed April 26, 1935, that on December 1, 1938, the case was on a pre-trial list and was then ordered on the jury list for the December term of 1938”, that under the circumstances the interrogatories are too late and the defendant should not be required to answer them. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizing 'Interrogatories to Parties (see Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c) contain no provisions requiring a determination that these interrogatories which were filed in October, 1940, are too late and in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the objections are overruled.

The intervenoFs motion that the defendant be ordered to answer the interrogatories, also heard today, is denied, because where no answers have been filed, I do not understand this to be the remedy afforded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant’s objections having been overruled, the defendant is granted the usual period of fifteen days in which to serve its answers to the interrogatories and if the defendant fails to do so, the intervenor may then avail itself of Rule 37(d) enabling the Court on motion to enter a judgment by default against the defendant.
#### MIDDLETON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, (also known as 3M Company), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2012-1283.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 21, 2013.

*973George C. Summerfield, Jr., Stadheim & Grear Ltd., of Chicago, IL, argued for the plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph A. Grear and Keith A. Vogt.

David J.F. Gross, of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, of Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were James W. Poradek, Timothy E. Grimsrud, Christopher J. Burrell and Katherine S. Razavi.

RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
United States Navy–Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jose R. IZQUIERDO

Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201800305

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Decided: 28 February 2019.

Military Judge: 

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Kasprzyk, USMCR.

Sentence adjudged 26 June 2018 by a special court-martial convened 

at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, consisting of a military judge sitting 

alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to E-1, 

confinement for 90 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Mark Takla, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: 

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

Before WOODARD, HUTCHISON, and ATTANASIO,

Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Izquierdo, No. 201800305

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-278V 

Filed: June 30, 2015 

Unpublished 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

JANICE SCHROEDER, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

 * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; 

 * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); Special 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner. 

Christine Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master: 

 On March 18, 2015, Janice Schroeder filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza [“flu”] 

vaccination on November 12, 2013, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration [“SIRVA”]. Petition at 2. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On June 29, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1, 4. Specifically, respondent indicates that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent 

with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration [SIRVA] and recommends that 

compensation be awarded in this case.” Id. at 1. Respondent further indicates that 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006). 
2

“petitioner’s injury is not due to factors unrelated to the administration of the flu vaccine” 

and that “the six month sequela requirement has been satisfied.” Id. at 4. 

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

 s/Denise K. Vowell 

 Denise K. Vowell 

 Chief Special Master
47 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Spring 2014 • www.bls.gov/ooq

More education, less unemployment

Monthly unemployment rates by educational attainment, 2003–13

Note: Seasonally adjusted, unemployment rates of people in the labor force ages 25 years and over.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey

You probably know lots of reasons why it’s smart to stay 

in school. Well, here’s one more: You’re less likely to be 

unemployed. According to data released in January 2014 

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the higher 

your level of education, the lower your rate of unemployment. 

In the last decade, as the chart shows, people with 

higher levels of education consistently had lower unemployment rates than people with lower levels of education. For example, in February 2010 unemployment rates 

peaked at 15.8 percent for people who had less than a high 

school diploma. At that time, the unemployment rate for 

people who had a bachelor’s degree or higher also reached 

a high point, but at 5.0 percent—about one-third the rate 

for people who had less than a high school diploma. 

Even in times of low unemployment, rates have 

differed markedly by education. For people with less 

than a high school diploma, the lowest unemployment 

rate in the last 10 years was 5.8 percent in October 2006. 

That was more than triple the lowest rate, 1.8 percent, for 

people with a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

The unemployment rate is the percentage of the labor 

force that is jobless, has actively looked for a job in the 

prior 4 weeks, and is currently available for work. (It does 

not take into account people who would like a job but are 

not looking for one.)

These data come from the Current Population Survey. 

For more information, write to the BLS Division of Labor 

Force Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 4675, 

Washington, D.C. 20212; call (202) 691-6378; or visit 

online, www.bls.gov/CPS.

Less than a high school diploma High school diploma or equivalent Some college or associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree or higher

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Unemployment rate (percent)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013