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



Exhibit 31.1 Written Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, C. Thomas Faulders, III, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LCC International,
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: August 13, 2004 /s/ C. Thomas Faulders, III
C. Thomas Faulders, III
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith
R. Marchiando, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Keith R. Marchiando
---------------------------------------
Keith R. Marchiando
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
November 14, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3296 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3296

  To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 with 
   respect to grants for economic adjustment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2011

 Mr. Carnahan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Financial Services, 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 amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 with 
   respect to grants for economic adjustment, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Small Business Energy Improvements 
Financing Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 209 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Energy Efficiency Programs.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to make 
        grants under this section to support innovative, utility-
        administered energy efficiency programs for small business 
        concerns.
            ``(2) Small business concern defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term `small business concern' has the meaning given that 
        term under section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
        632(a)).''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          37,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               230,756
<PP&E>                                         163,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,202
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     347,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   518,706
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               354,257
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,595
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,861
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1
 TRIDENT MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    
    Ownership PercentageTrident Microsystems (Far East) Ltd.
    
    Cayman Islands, B.W.I.
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microelectronics Ltd.
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    
    100
    %Trident Multimedia Technologies (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Beijing) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Hong Kong) Ltd
    
    Hong Kong, SAR
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Europe) GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems Nederland B.V.
    
    The Netherlands
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems Holding B.V.
    
    The Netherlands
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Korea) Limited
    
    Korea
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Taiwan) Ltd
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Japan) GK
    
    Japan
    
    
    100
    %NG Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd.*
    
    India
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Haifa) Ltd.
    
    Israel
    
    
    100
    %Trident Digital Systems (UK) Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
    
    
    100
    %Trident Microsystems (Europe) B.V.
    
    The Netherlands
    
    
    100
    %Trident MS (Taiwan) Ltd.
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    
    100
    %
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1999 and the Statement of Operations for
the Year Ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,204
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,956
<PP&E>                                       3,803,199
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,687,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,769
<SALES>                                        273,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               273,357
<CGS>                                          207,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,816)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,816)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,816)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.39)


</TABLE>
#### Michael JAHNS, Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 74-771C (2).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

March 3, 1975.

*762Stuart Cofman, Cofman, Nissenholtz & Weinstein, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

R. W. Yost, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

REGAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on motion of defendant for summary judgment. The determinative facts on the issue of liability are not in dispute.

The action was brought under Title VII on the theory that plaintiff, a Caucasian male, was discriminated against on the basis of sex by reason of 'defendant’s requirement that plaintiff comply with grooming standards applicable only to male employees, namely that the hair may not be so long as to cover the shirt collar nor completely cover the ears or fall below the eyebrows. Plaintiff was in violation of these grooming standards on six occasions. Each time, the violation was called to his attention. On March 22, 1973, the third such occasion, plaintiff was told that unless he had his hair cut he would not be allowed to work until he did so. Plaintiff thereupon left the office to obtain a haircut and was absent four hours, an absence which cost him a half days’ pay. In the department where plaintiff is employed there are 183 male and 37 female employees. Although the complaint charges race and color discrimination, it is conceded that sex discrimination alone is the basis of plaintiff’s claim.

 The precise and only issue is whether a private employer may impose a grooming standard on its male employees to which its female employees are not subject. We hold that the male grooming standard is not violative of Title VII and does not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of sex within the meaning of the law. The objective of the statute is to achieve equality of employment opportunities, by prohibiting an employer from denying an individual the right to acquire or retain a job or the perquisites thereof simply because that individual is either a male or a female. In our judgment the grooming standard is a reasonable one which defendant may impose on males in the exercise of its right to determine how best to run its business. The distinction between men and women on the basis of hair length is clearly distinguishable from distinctions based on immutable or protected sexual characteristics. So far as we are aware, every appellate court which has considered this question has reached a similar conclusion. See, e. g. Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 160 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 488 F.2d 1333 and Willingham v. Telegraph Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 507 F.2d 1084, 1975.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby sustained, and judgment will be entered dismissing this action with prejudice at plaintiff’s costs.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2675 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation 

of such title for a 1-year period ending June 22, 2010. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2675 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Antitrust Criminal 

3 Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DELAY OF SUNSET. 

6 Section 211(a) of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty En7 hancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) 

8 is amended by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT. 

10 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

11 immediately before June 22, 2009. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2675 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty 

ending June 22, 2010. the operation of such title for a 1-year period Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIA MCMILLON, a/k/a Julia Walker, a/k/a Julia Bivens, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-304) Submitted: November 5, 1996 Decided: November 15, 1996 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julia McMillon, Appellant Pro Se. John Patrick Rowley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the denial of Appellant's motion. United States v. McMillon , No. CR-92-304 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 1996). Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion for production of a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1532

_____________________________
J ACK M C F ARLAND , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA C OMMISSION ON O FFENDER R EVIEW a nd F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Appellee s

.

__________ ___________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Karen Gievers , Judge

. July 24, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jack McFarland, pro se
, Appellant.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee; Kenneth Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee
, for Appellee s

.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10313 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DOMINGO RIOS GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-267-2

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Domingo Rios Garcia pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. He appeals the 130-month sentence imposed by the district court. Garcia argues that the district court erred by denying him a reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for being a minor participant in the offense. He contends that heNo. 06-10313 -2- was clearly less culpable than his co-defendant and that his conduct was not essential to the advancement of the delivery of cocaine. Garcia maintains that he made no decisions with respect to the cocaine transaction and was unaware of its scope, but rather was a mere one-time courier whose role was peripheral to the offense. The record indicates that Garcia assisted in the acquisition of the vehicles used in the conspiracy and participated in the transportation of the cocaine to its destination. Because there was sufficient evidence to show that Garcia’s role in the conspiracy was more than peripheral and that he was not substantially less culpable than the average participant, the district court did not clearly err in refusing a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 adjustment. See United States v. Villanueva , 408 F.3d 193, 203- 04 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Amrit K. Das, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of netGuru, 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; and

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     report.


Date: April 20, 2005

/s/ AMRIT K. DAS
----------------
Amrit K. Das, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)




<PAGE>


I, Bruce K. Nelson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of netGuru, 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; and

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     report.


Date: April 20, 2005

/s/ BRUCE K. NELSON
-------------------
Bruce K. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)