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



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AESP, Inc.;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b)
    
    intentionally omitted;  c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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  d)
    
    disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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
function):  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
controls over financial reporting. Date: May 14, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Slav SteinName:
    Slav SteinTitle:
    President and Chief
Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael H. Johnson, Appellant.

[5 NYS3d 641]

*1327Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered March 19, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a bench trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [4]) in connection with the theft of a credit card from the victim’s purse, which the victim left in her car in the parking lot of a business while she was in the building. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court properly denied that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his inculpatory statement to the police. Defendant’s statement was spontaneous, i.e., it was not “triggered by police conduct which should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant” *(People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 295 [1980]; *see People v Witherspoon,*66 AD3d 1456, 1458 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 942 [2010]; *cf. People v Lanahan,*55 NY2d 711, 713 [1981]). We further conclude that the photo array shown to three eyewitnesses was not unduly suggestive *(see generally People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990]). The court properly determined that the subjects depicted therein were sufficiently similar in appearance so that the viewer’s attention was not drawn to any one photograph in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection *(see People v Alston,*101 AD3d 1672, 1673 [2012]; *People v Weston,*83 AD3d 1511, 1511 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 823 [2011]).

Contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he stole a credit card. Defendant was observed in the victim’s vehicle by two witnesses, and the victim testified that the reloadable VISA card had approximately $100 of credit, that it was not in her wallet that was in the vehicle after defendant exited the vehicle, and that the credit card was cancelled that day *(see People v Howard,*167 AD2d 922, 922 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 961 [1991]; *see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this bench trial *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the court did not fail to give the evidence the *1328weight it should be accorded and, thus, we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Lane,*7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; *Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495).

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.
# FY17_Q1

# FY17_Q2

# FY17_Q3

# FY17_Q4

# Serotypes - User Notes
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nathaniel Howard THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40878

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2011.

Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Robert Gerard Arrambide, Federal Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*743Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078, was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base, and distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a playground. He was sentenced to concurrent 235-month prison terms on each count. Pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court subsequently reduced his sentence to 188 months of imprisonment. On appeal of the reduction, Thomas argues that the district court was without authority to impose the original sentence and erred by failing to reduce his sentence below 188 months. Both of these issues are foreclosed.

A § 3582(e)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing but an opportunity for a sentence reduction based on limited circumstances prescribed by the Sentencing Commission. *Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); *United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). As the issue related to the original sentence was unaffected by the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court lacked authority to address the issue pursuant to a motion under § 3582(c)(2).

A district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) below the minimum of the amended guideline range only if the defendant’s sentence was below the guideline range applicable at the time of the original sentencing. *See DilIon,*130 S.Ct. at 2691-92. Contrary to Thomas’s allegation, the original sentence was not less that the applicable guidelines range at the time, and the district court could not have imposed a sentence less than 188 months pursuant to a motion under § 3582(c)(2) based on the amended guidelines.

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Tucker I. Marr, Chief Financial Officer of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, hereby
certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, containing the financial statements of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance
Company of New Jersey) and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.

Date: August 13, 2010



/s/ Tucker I. MarrTucker I. MarrChief Financial OfficerPruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document.
[No. 34757-1-II.

Division Two.

August 28, 2007.]

#### Natkin-Scott et al., *Appellants,*v. M+W Zander, U.S. Operations, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 05-2-01018-9, Diane M. Woolard, J., entered April 14, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Van Deren, A.C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Penoyar, JJ.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2611

To delay the effective date of certain proposed amendments to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 1, 1993

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To delay the effective date of certain proposed amendments

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘The Delayed Effective

5 Date of Certain Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil

6 Procedure Act of 1993’’.

7 SEC. 2. DELAY THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CERTAIN AMEND8 MENTS TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

10 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which
2

HR 2611 IH

1 were adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States

2 and submitted to the Congress on April 22, 1993, shall

3 have no force or effect until July 1, 1996.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 003 3 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN LEE LONGTINE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 14 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 9 2020

09/09/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0033
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         001026348
<NAME>                        LEXINGTON HEALTHCARE GROUP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                     2,842
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             14,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                                (420)
<INVENTORY>                                                  776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          18,283
<PP&E>                                                     4,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (585)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            31,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     15,346
<BONDS>                                                    7,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                      41
<OTHER-SE>                                                 6,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              31,021
<SALES>                                                   34,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          35,013
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             33,939
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              593
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          183
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                .04
                                         


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2879 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

promote behavioral health crisis response training among law enforcement 

officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2018 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to promote behavioral health crisis response 

training among law enforcement officers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Behavioral Health Cri5 sis Response Improvements Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2879 IS

1 SEC. 2. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS RESPONSE TRAINING 

2 AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime 

4 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 

5 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘PART NN—BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS RE7 SPONSE TRAINING AMONG LAW ENFORCE8 MENT OFFICERS. 

9 ‘‘SEC. 3041. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS RESPONSE TRAIN10 ING AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 

11 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section— 

12 ‘‘(1) the term ‘Director’ means the Director of 

13 the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; 

14 ‘‘(2) the term ‘eligible entity’ means a State, 

15 local, tribal, or territorial law enforcement agency; 

16 and 

17 ‘‘(3) the term ‘training provider’ means a per18 son with which, using funds from a grant awarded 

19 under this section, an eligible entity contracts for be20 havioral health crisis response training for law en21 forcement officers. 

22 ‘‘(b) GRANTS.— 

23 ‘‘(1) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—The Di24 rector may make grants on a competitive basis to el25 igible entities to assist those eligible entities in acVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:23 May 26, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2879.IS S2879

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2879 IS

1 quiring behavioral health crisis response training for 

2 law enforcement officers. 

3 ‘‘(2) APPLICATIONS.—An eligible entity desiring 

4 a grant under this section shall submit to the Direc5 tor an application at such time, in such manner, and 

6 containing or accompanied by such information, as 

7 the Director may reasonably require. 

8 ‘‘(3) QUALIFICATION STANDARDS.—The Direc9 tor shall establish and publish qualification stand10 ards for training providers.’’. 

11 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

12 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

13 Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)) is amended by 

14 adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(28) There are authorized to be appropriated 

16 to carry out part NN $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 

17 years 2019 through 2021.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### Terry L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEATTLE PARKS DEPT., Defendant—Appellee.

No. 09-35854.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 7, 2011.

Terry L. Jefferson, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Fritz E. Wollett, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

*49Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Terry L. Jefferson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint for failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan),*253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling because Jefferson failed properly to serve a summons and complaint on the defendant even after receiving several extensions of time for effecting service, *see*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) & 4(m), or to show good cause for this failure, see *In re Sheehan,*253 F.3d at 512; *Townsel v. Cnty of Contra Costa,*820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1987) (ignorance does not constitute good cause).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson’s motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional circumstances. *See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,*390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Jefferson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Order entered January 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00695-CR

JAMES EDWARD ROGERS, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 28576

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s January 16, 2015 motion to extend time to file his brief. 

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2654

To authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to

exempt certain small landfills from the groundwater monitoring requirements contained in landfill regulations promulgated by the Agency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 1993

Mr. SARPALIUS (for himself, Mr. ENGLISH of Oklahoma, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr.

ROBERTS, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. EDWARDS of Texas, Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr.

ANDREWS of Texas, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr.

ORTIZ, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. DOOLEY, Mr. ORTON, Mr. PENNY, Mr.

HAYES, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. MCCURDY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. JOHNSON

of South Dakota, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. POSHARD, Mr. DORNAN,

Mr. SKEEN, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. STUMP, Mr. BONILLA, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. HUTTO, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. PASTOR, Mr.

BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. COLEMAN, and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to exempt certain small landfills from the

groundwater monitoring requirements contained in landfill regulations promulgated by the Agency.

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

•HR 2654 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SMALL

2 LANDFILLS FROM GROUND WATER MONITOR3 ING REQUIREMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

4 PROTECTION AGENCY LANDFILL REGULA5 TIONS.

6 Section 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42

7 U.S.C. 6949a(c)) is amended—

8 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Not later than

9 March 31, 1988,’’;

10 (2) in the last sentence, by inserting ‘‘, except

11 as provided in paragraph (2),’’ before ‘‘ground water

12 monitoring’’; and

13 (3) by adding at the end the following new

14 paragraph:

15 ‘‘(2)(A) The Administrator may exempt from the

16 ground water monitoring requirement any facility—

17 ‘‘(i) at which less than 20 tons of municipal

18 solid waste is disposed of daily;

19 ‘‘(ii) at which there is no evidence of existing

20 ground water contamination from the facility; and

21 ‘‘(iii) which serves a community—

22 ‘‘(I) that experiences an annual interrup23 tion of at least 3 consecutive months of surface

24 transportation that prevents access to a re25 gional waste management facility; or
3

•HR 2654 IH

1 ‘‘(II) that has no practicable waste man2 agement alternative and is in an area that re3 ceives 25 inches or less of precipitation annu4 ally.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Joseph K. Jachinowski, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



February 9, 2005



/s/ JOSEPH K. JACHINOWSKIJoseph K. Jachinowski Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer