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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Timothy M. Yager, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of iPCS, Inc.;

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:



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):



|Date: December 28, 2004                                                   | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/TIMOTHY M. YAGERTimothy M. Yager
President and Chief Executive Officer | 

---



QuickLinks
[No. 23246-8-III.

Division Three.

October 20, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Spencer Carter, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 01-1-00895-4, Dennis D. Yule, J., entered July 23, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, C.J., concurred in by Schultheis, J., and Thompson, J. Pro Tern.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         606,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,473
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               771,273
<PP&E>                                       1,399,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                 176,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,095,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,866
<BONDS>                                      2,295,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          358,962
<PREFERRED>                                    488,787
<COMMON>                                           482
<OTHER-SE>                                    (241,399)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,095,492
<SALES>                                         77,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               519,369
<CGS>                                           49,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  341,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,538
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (370,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (370,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (438,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (10.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (10.45)
        

</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. CH RI STO PH ER LA M O N T W I LLI A M S, a. k . a. C h ri st o p h er W i l l i am s, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10535 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 7 0 9 - MHM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona M aryH . M ur gui a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , M c K E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C hr i s t ophe rL a m ontW i l l i a m s appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 1 2 0 - mo n th s e n t e n c e f

o rc o n s p i r a c yt o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e 5 0 0 g r a ms o rm o r e o f

c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) .



# FI LED FEB 23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10535 2 P ur s ua ntt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), W i l l i am s’ s c ou nselhas fi l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l of re cord. W e have provi ded the appel l antw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e a pro se s up pl em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef

has be e n f i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 235 F . 3d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N T E D . DI S MI S S E D.
[910 NYS2d 335]

#### Pinnacle Bronx West, LLC, Appellant, v Carlton Jennings, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 16, 2010

*62APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Horing, Welikson & Rosen, EC.,*Williston Park, for appellant. *Edward Kravitz,*Brooklyn, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs.

The landlord’s prior acceptance of a Section 8 rent subsidy constituted a “term and condition” of the tenant’s expired stabilized lease agreement *(see*Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.5 [g] [1]), so that the tenant’s 2007 “deemed” lease renewal was required to continue with that term and condition *(see Rosario v Diagonal Realty, LLC,*8 NY3d 755 [2007]). “Absent a showing by landlord of a new agreement. . . a Section 8 tenant does not become liable for the Section 8 share of the rent as ‘rent’ even after the termination of the subsidy” *(Prospect Place HDFC v Gaildon,*6 Misc 3d 135[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50232[U], *2 [2005], quoting *Rainbow Assocs. v Culkin,*2003 NY Slip Op 50771[U], *2 [2003]; *see also W & L Assoc., LLC v Gurevich,*16 Misc 3d 129[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51289[U] [2007]). Landlord’s contrary argument notwithstanding, a renewal lease purporting to obligate a former Section 8 tenant to pay the full lease rent cannot be considered such a “new agreement” sufficient to change or modify the terms and conditions of an expired stabilized lease *(see 835-37 Trinity Ave. HDFC v Royal,*26 Misc 3d 1240[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50481[U] [2010]). Thus, the court properly dismissed so much of the nonpayment petition as sought recovery of claimed arrears in excess of the tenant’s share of the rent. In affirming the partial dismissal of the petition, we note that among the potential remedies available to landlord is the commencement of a holdover summary proceeding based upon an alleged breach of lease *63stemming from tenant’s failure to recertify for Section 8 eligibility.

McKeon, EJ., Shulman and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.
exhibit_4a-82.htm











Exhibit 4. (a) 82




 


[State Emblem]







The State of Israel


Ministry of Communications


 


General License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of


Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT) Services using the Cellular Method


 


Amendment No. 66







By virtue of the authority of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that was delegeted to us, and all our other powers under any law and after having given Partner Communications Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Partner”) the opportunity to present their arguments, we hereby amend the General License for the provision of mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the cellular method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998,  as follows:








	
Addition of Article 72B

	
1.

	
After Article 72A, shall come:

	  
	  	
"

	
72B.

	
Disconnection of a Service due to Recovery of the Network during a Malfunction


	  	  	
72.1B

	
The Licensee may disconnect or temporarily limit services that it is obliged to provide, in order to allow a quick recovery of the network at the time of a significant malfunction.


 


For this matter- "significant malfunction" – a malfunction that causes the disconnection of service to 10% of the subscribers or to at least 100,000 subscribers, the lower of the two.


 


In this section, "subscriber" – including a subscriber of an MRT licensee in another network and a subscriber of a roaming licensee that use the network.


	  	  	
72.2B

	
The Licensee shall submit for the Director's approval, a procedure and a detailed engineering process for the recovery of the network in case of a significant malfunction ("the procedure") within  15 days from the date of signature of this amendment.


	  	  	
72.3B

	
During a significant malfunction the Licensee shall act in accordance with the procedure that was submitted to the Director or approved by the Director, the later of the two.


	  	  	
72.4B

	
The procedure should include, inter alia, an initiated disconnection of services to subscribers that were not directly affected by the significant malfunction that shall begin no more than two hours after identification of the significant malfunction; this is in order to reduce the burden and the controlled reinstatement of regular and proper service.


	  	  	
72.5B

	
The procedure shall allow, as much as possible, preferability  for regular and proper services for the security forces, public emergency services and hospitals, as will be decided by the Director."












(4 September 2012)







     (sgd)                                           


              ________________                                                                                                ________________


             Haim Giron                                                                                                                   Eden Bar Tal


             Senior Deputy Engineering& Licensing                                                                 Director General


 


2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132262 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132262 COA: 268969 Oakland CC: 1994-134620-FC; 1994-134435-FC GARY O. SIRBAUGH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1218 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.

December 29, 2006

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlene ECKLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7603.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Darlene Eckles, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darlene Eckles appeals the district court’s order granting her motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Eckles,*No. 5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-5 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2012). 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.*

*

 Although the district court granted Eckles § 3582 relief, the reduction granted by the court did not reduce her sentence to the full extent requested.
# SNR02
```
**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 Hydroflo, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis Mast, Chief
Financial 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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

        (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 the
            operation of the Company.

/s/ Dennis Mast
Dennis Mast
Chief Financial Officer
October 13, 2005
```
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
February 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________________ Summary Calendar No. 03-40850

____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF: LISA VELA WATSON, Debtor.

____________________________

RUDY WAUQUIN VELA; RICHARD W. VELA; JALINDA JOYCE BISSETT; REBECCA LEE VELA; LISA VELA WATSON,

Appellants,

versus

JESUS M. CASTELLANO; LA CASA DE NYLON, A TEXAS PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF ABRAHAM GALONSKY

AND ISRAEL LIAZKA,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - McAllen Division

Civil Case No. M-02-CV-245

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellants seek a reversal of the bankruptcy court’s

decision, affirme d by the district court, that annulled the

automatic stay as to a foreclosure of a tiny property interest that2

had been transferred to Ms. Watson on the eve of foreclosure.

Appellants contend that, because the Watson bankruptcy was
eventually dismissed, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to

annul the automatic stay retroactively. On the other hand, they

want the bankruptcy court to adjudicate their claim for damages

occasioned by the alleged violation of the stay.

They cannot have it both ways. If the court had

j urisdiction to reopen the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 35 0 and

adjudicate their claim, it also had jurisdiction to annul the stay
retroactively, and we find no error in its exercise of discretion

in the annulment decision.

If the court retained jurisdiction by virtue of the

ongoing litigation between these parties over these matters for the

past seven to eight years, it had jurisdiction to order retroactive

annulment.

Finally, because the main bankruptcy case was dismissed

for want of prosecution by Ms. Watson, and because the bankruptcy

court ind icated it would originally have granted relief from the

automatic stay for lack of equity in the property, appellants’

claim is essentially frivolous: they can state no damages arising

from the foreclosure.

The judgments of the district and bankruptcy courts are

AFFIRMED

.
Advance copies of this statement are made available to the press 

under lock-up conditions with the explicit understanding that 

the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

Statement of 

John M. Galvin 

Acting Commissioner 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Friday, July 6, 2012

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to edge up in June 

(+80,000), and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 

percent. Employment growth averaged 75,000 per month in the 

second quarter of the year, compared with an average monthly 

increase of 226,000 in the first quarter. Slower job growth in 

the second quarter occurred in most major industries. 

Employment in professional and business services grew by 

47,000 in June. Since the most recent low in September 2009, 

employment in the industry has risen by 1.5 million. Much of 

the growth occurred in temporary help services, which added 

25,000 jobs over the month and 776,000 jobs since September 

2009.

Manufacturing employment continued to edge up in June 

(+11,000). Job gains averaged 10,000 per month in the second 
2 

quarter, compared with an average of 41,000 per month in the 

first quarter. 

In June, employment continued to trend up in health care 

(+13,000) and in wholesale trade (+9,000). Employment in other 

major industries changed little over the month. 

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm 

payrolls increased by 6 cents in June to $23.50. Over the past 

12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.0 percent. 

From May 2011 to May 2012, the Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 1.7 percent. 

Turning now to our survey of households, the unemployment 

rate held at 8.2 percent in June, and the number of unemployed 

persons was essentially unchanged at 12.7 million. The labor 

force participation rate, at 63.8 percent, and the employmentpopulation ratio, at 58.6 percent, were unchanged over the 

month. These major labor force indicators have shown little 

movement in the first half of 2012. 

In summary, nonfarm payroll employment continued to edge up 

in June, and the unemployment rate remained at 8.2 percent.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.6
 THE WESTAIM CORPORATION
 Chief Executive Officers Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2005 of The
Westaim 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; andc)
    
    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
function):
 1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 99.6
 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; 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/ Barry M. Heck

Name: Barry M. HeckTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2


                       KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
follows:

1.   I, Lawrence C.P. Li, am the Director, Finance, of Kowloon-Canton Railway
     Corporation (the "Corporation").

2.   To the best of my knowledge:

     (A)  The Corporation's Form 20-F accompanying this Certification, in the
          form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
          fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"); and

     (B)  The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Corporation.

Dated: June 30, 2004

                                        /s/ Lawrence C.P. Li
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Lawrence C.P. Li
                                        Title: Director, Finance



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.