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







CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)





I, Adam Radly, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Inova Technology 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.   The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   September 18, 2009
/s/Adam RadlyChief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Roseann Kilduff, Appellant, v Rochester City School District et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 779]

*1267Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered January 25, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is granted, the determinations are annulled and respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner to her position as a tenured teacher forthwith with full back pay and benefits and to remove all references to the discipline imposed from petitioner’s personnel file.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to annul the determinations suspending her for two days and five days, respectively, without pay from her position as a tenured teacher with respondent Rochester City School District. Supreme Court erred in denying the petition *(see Matter of Kilduff v Rochester City Sch. Dist.,*107 AD3d 1536, 1537 [2013], *lv granted*22 NY3d 854 [2013]). As we wrote in *Kilduff,*“petitioner was entitled to choose whether to be disciplined under the procedures set forth in the [collective bargaining agreement] or those set forth in [Education Law §] 3020-a,” and respondents “incorrectly denied petitioner’s written request for a section 3020-a hearing” *(id.; see*Education Law §§ 3020 [1]; 3020-a).

Present—Scudder, PJ., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
                                                                    ------------



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Valley Industries, Inc. and
 Z Leasing Company:


   
We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report, dated June 17, 1996, with
respect to the combined statements of earnings, stockholders' and partners'
equity, and cash flows of Valley Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries and Z Leasing
Company (A General Partnership) for the year ended January 31, 1996, in the Form
10-K/A-2 for the year ended June 27, 1998 of U.S. Foodservice.  We also 
consent to the incorporation by reference of such report in the registration
statements on Form S-3 (333-67553) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 
33-88144, 33-88146, 33-81011, 333-37359, 333-43185 and 333-47759) of U.S.
Foodservice.    


/s/ KPMG LLP

   
KPMG LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
March 1, 1999
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

FEBRUARY 10, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED100977 CORY J. BROOKS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

2. ED101046 C. HERMANN APP V MO ST PUBLIC DEF SYSTEM ETAL 

RES

3. ED101153 RONALD C. HAMILTON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

4. ED101397 ANTONIO POWELL, APP V. STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30799

Summary Calendar

GORDON GAMBLE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

CHEVRON ORONITE COMPANY, L.L.C.; GARY THOMAS,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18

- CV

- 10102

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges

.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See Fifth Cir. R. 47.6.

* 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

May 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Case: 19-30799 Document: 00515411899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
---

Exhibit 32.1





Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on the Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Derek Cooper, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director
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:





(i)         the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii)         The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.





ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:May 14, 2009

By:

/s/ Derek CooperDerek Cooper
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging,
or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001088204
<NAME>                        TRIWEST MANAGEMENT RESOURCES CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Peter P. Brubaker, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2004 of Susquehanna Media Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 17, 2004      /s/ Peter P. Brubaker       Peter P. Brubaker   President and CEO
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.
333-168250) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-39129, 333-59859, 333-87715, 333-41954, 333-54010, 333-63156, 333-100094, 333-113683,
333-119799, 333-128529, and 333-130419) of Mattson Technology, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2011, relating
to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which
appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
San Jose, California 
March 11, 2011

---
* 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 February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40756 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SERGIO GARCIA-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-942-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sergio GarciaReyes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Smith, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 648]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), entered on or about June 14, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion, brought pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (g), to vacate a judgment of the same court (Richard Failla, J.), rendered October 1, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and related crimes, and imposing sentence, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the motion court that the results of the post-conviction DNA tests would not have probably resulted in a more favorable verdict for defendant *(see,*CPL 440.10 [1] [g]; 440.30 [1-a]). The fact that defendant was not the source of the semen is entirely consistent with the victim’s testimony that she had intercourse with her boyfriend shortly before the rape, and that she did not know if defendant ejaculated. Moreover, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and there is no claim of mistaken identity. The court correctly applied the high standard applicable to newly discovered evidence, to wit, probability of affecting the verdict, and the court’s decision to order the post-conviction DNA test pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) did not necessarily require it to grant the motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (g) upon receipt of a test result favorable to defendant.

To the extent that defendant claims that DNA testing should have been conducted by the People, such claim is not properly before us (CPL 440.10 [2] [a]), having been rejected on defendant’s direct appeal (204 AD2d 140, *lv denied*84 NY2d 872). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
[No. 67713-6-I.

Division One.

October 15, 2012.]

#### The Estate of Maia Haykin et al., Appellants, v. The City of Bellingham et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for What-com County, No. 10-2-00168-5, Charles R. Snyder, J., entered August 26, *2011.Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Ellington, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Lau, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Murray, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 716]

—Motion by the defendant for reargument of an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 16, 1995, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated May 19, 1997.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that upon reargument the decision and unpublished order of this Court dated May 19,1997, is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme *532Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered May 16, 1995, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly denied, without, *inter alia,*an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty *(see,*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520; *People v Dickerson,*163 AD2d 610). The defendant’s allegations of coercion made at sentencing were belied by the record of the plea proceedings in which he expressly stated under oath that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty. Furthermore, the sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by refusing to substitute assigned counsel when the defendant perfunctorily indicated dissatisfaction with counsel’s representation but otherwise failed to elaborate thereon *(see, People v Peterkin,*133 AD2d 472). Moreover, we note that defense counsel represented the defendant throughout the *Wade-Mapp*hearings and the plea negotiations without a previous complaint by the defendant *(see, People v Peterkin, supra; People v Gloster,*175 AD2d 258). At the plea proceedings, the defendant indicated that he had fully discussed the plea of guilty with his counsel and that his counsel had answered any and all questions concerning the plea of guilty.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 Emergency Filtration Products, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Steve M. Hanni, 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Steve M. Hanni
Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer

Date: August 13, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
#### UNITED STATES v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 4, 1897.)

No. 280.

Railroad Companies — Government Aid — Railroad Reports.

Act June 19, 1878 (1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 194), requiring certain reports, prescribed by the auditor of railroad accounts, to be made by railroads to which the United States have granted any loan of credit or subsidy, in bonds or lands, or which have received from the United States lands granted to them to aid in the construction of their roads, does not apiply to the railroads which were incorporated by the several states, and received from them the grants of' land made to such states to procure the construction of railroads.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United ¡States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

J. H. M. Wigman, for the United States.

George R. Peck, for defendant in error.

Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by the United States to recover of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company the penalty prescribed by the act of congress entitled “An act to create an auditor of railroad accounts and for other purposes,” approved June 19, 1878, for neglect to make a report as required. 20 Stat. 169, c. 316, § 5. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the declaration, and gave judgment for the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion delivered in support of that ruling (U. S. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. *89);*and we fully concur iu the conclusion there declared, that the statute under which the action was .brought js not applicable. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
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 Inova Technology, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2008, (the “Report”), as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bob Bates,
        Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
        of my
        knowledge, 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.
 
 
 
 By:
        /s/
        Bob Bates
 
 Bob
        Bates
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 *September
        15, 2008*