alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

**Certification of the ChiefExecutive Officer**

(Pursuant to Rule13a-14(a))

I, Brett Moyer, certifythat:

1.               I have reviewedthis Form 10-Q of Focus Enhancements, Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2006

 
|   | /s/  Brett Moyer |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |                  |
|   | Brett Moyer           |
|   | President and  CEO    |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5427 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5427

    To clarify that State tax incentives for business investment in 
 equipment and facilities are a reasonable regulation of commerce and 
           are not an undue burden upon interstate commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2004

 Mr. Chandler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify that State tax incentives for business investment in 
 equipment and facilities are a reasonable regulation of commerce and 
           are not an undue burden upon interstate commerce.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Jobs Investment Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. STATE TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE ACQUISITION, 
              CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND REHABILITATION OF 
              IMPROVEMENTS, REAL ESTATE, FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT, AND 
              FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--A State may provide to any entity--
            (1) a credit against any tax or fee owed to the State under 
        a State law; or
            (2) any other tax incentive, determined by the State to be 
        appropriate, in an amount calculated under a formula determined 
        by the State, for investment in the acquisition, construction, 
        installation, and rehabilitation of improvements, real estate, 
        fixtures, equipment, and facilities located in the State by the 
        entity that receives such credit or such incentive.
    (b) Effect on Interstate Commerce.--Any action taken by a State in 
accordance with this section with respect to a tax or fee payable, or 
incentive applicable, for any period beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act shall--
            (1) be considered to be a reasonable regulation of 
        commerce; and
            (2) not be considered an undue burden in interstate 
        commerce or otherwise impair, restrain, or discriminate against 
        interstate commerce.
                                 <all>
```
**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 Infinite Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Smith,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
      request.




May 11, 2007
            
            /s/
                MICHAEL S. SMITHMichael
                S. Smith
              Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Executive and Financial Officer)
201

979.35834

eng -
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00085- CV May ra OROZCO , Appellant
v. BEX AR CO UN TY , Appellee Fr om County

Court at L aw No. 2, B exar County , Texas Trial Court No. 322424 Honora ble Timothy

J ohnson, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 8, 2008 REVERSED AND REMANDED Th e a pp e lla nt fi le d a n a pp e a l f ro m th e tr ia l c ou

rt ’s g ra nti ng of a pp e lle e ’s mot ion

to d ism iss
a nd ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n, in w hic h s he as ks th at th e c ou rt ’s or de r b e re ve rs e d a nd the c a us e
rema nded. Appe llee has f

iled a letter

with this court “ac quiesc[ing] to a n y re l i ef soug ht by [ap pe lla nt] an d re sp e c tf

ull y a sk [ing ] thi s Cour

t to g ra nt” the re qu e ste d r e lie f. We t he re fo re re ve rs e the trial cour

t’s Orde r of Nove mber 1, 2007 a nd rema nd this cause to the tria l co u rt for f urther pr oc e e din g s. PER C URI AM
# cpsaat07
[No. 54966-9-I.

Division One.

October 24, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Robert T. Westbrook, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 04-1-00817-9, James H. Allendoerfer, J., entered September 16, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**ICIM Services***Partners in Risk Management*

 

November 30, 2011

 

Mr. Scott Stroh  Legal Counsel  Saturna Capital Corporation  1300 N. State Street  Bellingham, WA 98225

**RE: ICI Mutual Investment Company Blanket Bond No. 89265111B ("Bond")****D&O/E&O Liability Insurance Policy No. 89265111D ("Policy")**

Dear Mr Stroh:

As we have previously discussed, we understand that you prepare a proposed  allocation of premium between the joint insureds on the above referenced Bond  and Policy. I am hereby confirming that the share of total premium for Blanket  Bond and D&O/E&O coverage allocated to each Investment Company Insured  is less than the premium such company would have to pay if it had purchased  separate policies from ICI Mutual.

Further, we estimate that the Amana Mutual Funds Trust would pay approximately  $70,500 for a Policy with a limit of $3,000,000 and the Saturna Investment Trust  would pay approximately $22,900 for a Policy with a limit of $1,000,000. Lastly,  Saturna Capital Corp. would pay approximately $32,000 for a $1,000,000 Policy.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 202/326-5479.

Regards,

*/s/Maggie Sullivan*  Senior Underwriter

 

 

 

*1401 H Street, NW • Washington, DC  2005 • 800.643.4246 • Fax: 202.682.2425*
Joseph P. La Sala 

MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075 

Phone: (973) 993-8100

Facsimile: (973) 425-0161

Jlasala@mdmc-law.com

Attorneys for Defendants Express Scripts, Inc., Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc. 

and Plato Merger Sub, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: 

MEDCO/EXPRESS SCRIPTS MERGER 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-4211 (DMC) (MF)

CERTIFICATION OF 

JOSEPH P. LA SALA

JOSEPH P. LA SALA hereby certifies that:

1. I am a member of the law firm of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, 

LLP, attorneys for Defendants Express Scripts, Inc., Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc., Aristotle 

Holding, Inc. and Plato Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, "Express Scripts") in the above-captioned 

action. I submit this Certification in support of Express Scripts' Reply Memorandum of Law in 

Support of Its Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Stay Pending 

Appeal.

2. I have attached hereto as Exhibit A, In re Compellent Techs., Inc. S'holder Litig., 

C.A No. 6084-VCL, dated January 13, 2011 (Transcript).

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74-1 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2778
2

3. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 11, 2011

/s/ Joseph P. La Sala

 Joseph P. La Sala

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74-1 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2779
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd A. Branch, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[855 NYS2d 315]

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [former (4)]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the single plea colloquy for both pleas establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent *(see People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]; *People v Williams,*39 AD3d 1200 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 853 [2007]). The further contention of defendant that the pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crimes “is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution[s] . . . , [which] is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal” *(People*
      *1207
      *v Wilson,*38 AD3d 1348 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 927 [2007]; *People v Williams,*35 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 928 [2007]). Defendant also failed to preserve that contention for our review, and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *Wilson,*38 AD3d 1348 [2007]; *Williams,*35 AD3d at 1274). Finally, the challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence in each appeal is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
[No. 54384-9-I.

Division One.

October 17, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kevin Paul Talbott, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-1-06585-1, Joan B. Allison, J. Pro Tern., entered April 23, *2004.Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J., concurred in by Becker and Schindler, JJ.
#### Christopher Ryan PIGGOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Loretta KELLY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-7557.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Christopher Ryan Piggott, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Ryan Piggott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Piggott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY GREG LAPOINTE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0108 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2009-048332-001

The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Krista Wood

Counsel for Respondent

Anthony Greg LaPointe, Buckeye

Petitioner

FILED 6-29-2023
STATE v. LAPOINTE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Anthony Greg LaPointe seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This 

is petitioner’s fifth successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from September
30, 1999 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              434,878
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,520,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                         45,088
<INVENTORY>                                         544,886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2,916,404
<PP&E>                                           10,791,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3,431,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11,962,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,643,419
<BONDS>                                           5,383,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,748
<OTHER-SE>                                        2,933,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11,962,507
<SALES>                                           6,813,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6,813,998
<CGS>                                             5,331,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8,505,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,140,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     39,388
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  405,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,199,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,199,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    4,170,315
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (222,864)
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        748,086
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .34


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended January 3, 2010 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) the information contained in Amendment Number 1 tothe Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended January 3, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: May 3, 2010 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amended and Restated Exhibit A to the Investment Management Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.10 
 EXHIBIT A 
 FEE SCHEDULE 

AMENDED AND RESTATED as of January 1, 2013 
 This Amended and Restated Exhibit A is effective as of January 1, 2013, and is attached to and made a part of the Investment Management Agreement between Stateco Financial Services, Inc.
(“Stateco”) and State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company effective April 1, 1993. 
 Agreement 

Except as amended or modified by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, Stateco shall be paid an investment management
fee every quarter based on a percentage of the average asset value of invested assets which average shall be calculated by adding the market value of invested assets at the beginning of the quarter and at the end of the quarter, dividing that sum by
two. The fee will be paid within forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar quarter. 
 The annual
fee for fixed instruments including bonds (taxable and tax-free), invested cash and preferred stock is 20 basis points or .002 times the average asset value of that category of invested asset. 

The annual fee for all common stock portfolios is 50 basis points or .005 times the average asset value of that category
of invested assets. 
  

			
	 STATECO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

		 	 President

		 	
	STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

		 	 President


 Agreemen/invest EXHIBIT A amended 1-1-13
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 Infinite Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
S. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.



/s/  MICHAEL S. SMITH
---------------------
    Michael S. Smith
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

July 26, 2005