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

Certification Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a), 
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Gale E. Klappa, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Wisconsin Gas 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:

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; 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(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):

a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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:       March 30, 2004

/s/ GALE E. KLAPPA                  Gale E. Klappa
                  Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                             161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,176
<INVENTORY>                                     39,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,729
<PP&E>                                          78,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,228
<BONDS>                                         70,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,959
<SALES>                                        159,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,479
<CGS>                                           89,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,026
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,865
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The
following companies are subsidiaries of Zale Corporation (1):

Zale
Delaware, Inc. (1)

Zale
International, Inc. (1)

The
following are subsidiaries of Zale Delaware, Inc.:



The
following companies are subsidiaries of Zale International, Inc.:



The
following company is a subsidiary of FINCO Holding, LP:



The
following company is a subsidiary of Zale Canada Co.:



State / Province / Country of Organization:

(1)    Delaware
(2)    Puerto Rico
(3)    Guam
(4)    Arizona
(5)    Texas
(6)    Barbados
(7)    New Brunswick, Canada
(8)    Nova Scotia, Canada
(9)    Virginia

---
No. 744.

#### Evans *v.*United States.

May 27, 1946.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Andrew F. Oehmann*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.'S DECEMBER 31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  274,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (25,300)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               259,600
<PP&E>                                       2,914,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,739,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,568,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          213,900
<BONDS>                                        430,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       639,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   (103,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,568,700
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,201,300
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  854,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,400)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                320,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   126,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            194,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   194,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>SECURITIES ARE NOT MATERIAL AND THEREFORE HAVE NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY
IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE CASH TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL REVENUES AND
THEREFORE HAS NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
PURSUANT TO REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B). THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE
"TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICE AND
PRODUCTS IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PURSUANT TO
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 Northwest Pipeline Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ J. Douglas WhisenantJ. Douglas WhisenantSenior Vice PresidentMarch 12, 2004/s/ Richard D. RodekohrRichard D. RodekohrVice President and TreasurerMarch 12, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Report.
**Exhibit 31.2**
 **Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**
 (Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a))
 
 I, Gary Williams, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Focus Enhancements, 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: (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; 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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: November 15, 2004/s/ Gary WilliamsGary WilliamsVP of Finance and CFO
 
 35
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 463

   To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to prohibit the paying of 
 premium subsidies on policies based on the actual market price of an 
             agricultural commodity at the time of harvest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 2015

Mr. Flake (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to prohibit the paying of 
 premium subsidies on policies based on the actual market price of an 
             agricultural commodity at the time of harvest.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PREMIUM SUBSIDY FOR HARVEST PRICE POLICIES.

    Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) Prohibition on premium subsidy for harvest price 
        policies.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
        beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year, the Corporation may 
        not pay any amount of premium subsidy in the case of a policy 
        or plan of insurance that is based on the actual market price 
        of an agricultural commodity at the time of harvest.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7026

ANTHONY JEROME WALKER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JANET COLEMAN,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03054-BO)

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Jerome Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jerome Walker appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Walker v. Coleman , No.

5:09-ct-03054-BO (E.D.N.C. May 19, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert L. Kees, Senior Vice President and 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                  
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Robert L. Kees                               
|                       |  | Robert L. Kees                                   
|                       |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                       |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### SHAW v. CITY OF COVINGTON et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 13, 1902.)

No. 1,165.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Ernst Cassatt & McDougall,

Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior, for appellant F. J. Hanlon, for appellees.

Dismissed.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMY HUGHES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANDREW KISELA, Corporal, 0203; 

individually and in his official 

capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15059

D.C. No.

4:11-cv-00366-

FRZ

OPINION

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed June 6, 2018

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit 

Judges, and William K. Sessions III,* District Judge.

 * The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District 

Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
2 HUGHES V. KISELA

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In view of the Supreme Court’s opinion dated April 2, 

2018, we affirm the decision of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
ex10_28.htm


    Exhibit 10.28


       

      Description
of Denny's 2009 Corporate Incentive Program

      


      On
December 23, 2008, the Compensation and Incentives Committee of the Board of
Directors of Denny's Corporation (the "Company" or “Denny’s”) approved and
adopted the Denny's 2009 Corporate Incentive Program (the "2009 Incentive
Program"), an incentive compensation arrangement for certain Denny's employees,
including the executive officers of the Company. Under the 2009 Incentive
Program, which is offered pursuant to the Denny's Corporation 2008 Omnibus
Incentive Plan (the "Denny's 2008 Omnibus Plan"), a participant is eligible to
earn a target bonus award ("Target Award") equal to a percentage of his or her
base salary, depending on the group classification assigned to such participant.
For Company executive officers, the Target Awards range from 75% to 100% of base
salary.

      


      Target
Awards are earned by participants based on the achievement of certain
pre-established annual performance goals for two (2) performance categories: (i)
system-wide sales; and (ii) adjusted income before taxes. The amount of actual
bonus earned may range from 25% to 50% of the Target Award, if certain threshold
goals are met, to 100% of the Target Award, if all targeted goals are met, to
150% of the Target Award, if targeted goals are exceeded. Additionally,
employees’ individual annual performance ratings impact the amounts of bonus
that may be earned under the program resulting in a total possible bonus range
from 0% to 187.5% of a participant’s Target Award. In addition to the
performance goals described above, with respect to the Company’s executive
officers, a pre-established threshold performance goal for 2009 Adjusted EBITDA
must also be achieved before such officers would be eligible for an award
pursuant to the terms of the 2009 CIP.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

August 7, 2020

Order 

Clerk

August 7, 2020

161625-6(108)

MARC SLIS and 906 VAPOR, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

SC: 161625

v COA: 351211 

Ct of Claims: 19-000152-MZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN and DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellants. 

___________________________________________

A CLEAN CIGARETTE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

SC: 161626

v COA: 351212

Ct of Claims: 19-000154-MZ

GOVERNOR, STATE OF MICHIGAN, and 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of various public health and medical 

organizations to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on 

August 5, 2020, is accepted for filing.
#### SRYBNIK v. EPSTEIN et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Sept. 19, 1952.

*249Seymour Stone, New York City, for plaintiff.

Richard J. Stull, New York City, for defendant Israel Epstein.

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant for an order compelling a witness to “complete his oral examination and unanswered questions” and requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents. A subpoena was issued addressed to the witness, but, upon the representation of counsel for the plaintiff, it appears that no notice for the taking of his deposition was ever served on the plaintiff. Rule 30(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. requires that reasonable notice in writing be given of the taking of a deposition upon oral examination to every other party in the action, and Rule 45(d) provides that proof of service of such a notice constitutes a sufficient authorization for the issuance by the clerk of the subpoena for the person named. Therefore, it would seem, that through oversight, a subpoena was improperly issued, and the witness is not now under subpoena. Although the Rules do not require the issuance of a subpoena in all cases, Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., vol. 4, § 26.10, nevertheless, attendance may be compelled only pursuant to a subpoena under the Rules. The motion to compel the witness to appear and give further testimony will be denied, but without prejudice to his further examination in accordance with the required procedure.

With respect to the motion to produce, the following disposition is made: Item (a), granted; item (b), denied on the basis of testimony that no such documents were discovered after a search made; item (c), granted to the extent of the dates of employment, capacity and last-known address; item (d), granted, if they exist; if they do not, as plaintiff’s counsel maintains, no prejudice can result; item (e) and item (f), granted.