alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

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 Sasol Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending
30 June 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our
knowledge:



Date: 12 October 2012By:

/s/ DAVID EDWARD CONSTABLEDavid Edward Constable Chief Executive OfficerDate: 12 October 2012By:

/s/ KANDIMATHIE CHRISTINE RAMONKandimathie Christine Ramon Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by Sasol Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even if the document with which it is
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.

---



QuickLinks
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60478

Summary Calendar

 

LONNIE DONNELLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WES CLEMENS; AMBER DARBY;

LINDA EDWARDS; DIANE FOY,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:02-CV-501-S

--------------------

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonnie Donnelly, Mississippi prisoner # K1304, appeals the

magistrate judge's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 

The magistrate judge dismissed Donnelly’s claims regarding a

denial of access to the courts for failure to state a

constitutional claim. Donnelly has not established that he was

unable to present a cognizable claim or that he was barred from

seeking review of a meritorious claim as a result of the

defendants’ refusal to give him his legal papers while he was in
No. 03-60478

-2-

administrative segregation. See Crowder v. Sinyard, 884 F.2d

804, 811 (5th cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v.

California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990); Sherrod v. State, 784 So. 2d

256, 259 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Consequently, the judgment of

the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1412

FRANCIS FORPA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-264-590) Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied; vacated in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. David K. Wenger, WENGER & DADISMAN, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Williams, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM Francis Forpa, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum. We reject Forpa ’s contention that he qualified for asylum. Forpa does not qualify for relief because the IJ made a negative credibility determination that is amply supported by the record and is entitled to deference. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004); Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude, however, that the record does not support the conclusion that Forpa knowingly filed a frivolous application. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 208.20 (2004). Accordingly, although we deny the petition for review, we vacate the Board’s decision insofar as it finds Forpa’s application frivolous. 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. PETITION DENIED ;

VACATED IN PART
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Ballistic and cruise missile threat.**
 
2006 | 2009 | 2013 | 2017
2020
 
SuDoc Number:D 301.2:M 69/6/
Item Number:0424 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001061729
 
June 20, 2018
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David Keleher, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DynamicsResearch Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004         By:                                      /s/ David Keleher    David Keleher    Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer  
52
§ 147.3 Guideline A—Allegiance to the United States. ( a ) *The concern.* An individual must be of unquestioned allegiance to the United States. The willingness to safeguard classified information is in doubt if there is any reason to suspect an individual's allegiance to the United States.
( b ) *Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:* ( 1 ) Involvement in any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, sedition, or other act whose aim is to overthrow the Government of the United States or alter the form of government by unconstitutional means;
( 2 ) Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;
( 3 ) Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate the overthrow of the United States Government, or any state or subdivision, by force or violence or by other unconstitutional means;
( 4 ) Involvement in activities which unlawfully advocate or practice the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.
( c ) *Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:* ( 1 ) The individual was unaware of the unlawful aims of the individual or organization and severed ties upon learning of these;
( 2 ) The individual's involvement was only with the lawful or humanitarian aspects of such an organization;
( 3 ) Involvement in the above activities occurred for only a short period of time and was attributable to curiosity or academic interest;
( 4 ) The person has had no recent involvement or association with such activities.
# ^oT'OST'/^^'Z-^.fV : Dc^RTMENTOFV: , -'••• : I: ' -ANSPORWIOM/ . • • • ^:;;;E T

## OPERATI C Mr . Wad e Davi s ;: : yj^y g ^ g 201 0 Ogdensbur g Bridg e and^flPj^t>l^ygh9q1J yp ij V j " j Suit e 102, 1 Bridg e Plaz a " | ^- ^ : , . . : . Ogdensburg , NY13669-229 9 [ ^ /:-';^^^';l•:':;!: • Victo rE . Pisan i 40 5 Willia m St . Ogdensburg , N Y1366 9 Augus t 4 , 201 0 Dea rMr . Davis : I hav e bee n utilizin g Cap e Air' s commute rai rservic e betwee n Ogdensbur g an d Alban ysinc e it s inceptio n an d hav e now / flow n wel l i n exces s o f 10 0 flights . Th e availabilit yo f thei rfligh t servic e ha s allowe d m e t o wor k

i n th e Alban yare a whil e maintainin g m ypermanen t residenc e i n Ogdensbur g withoy t facin g th e sometime s gruelin g 4 hou rdrive . Th e direc t flight s ge t m e t o Alban yan d bac k i n approj^imatel ya n hou ran d reall yhav e enable d m e t o continu e workin g whe n th e wea ran d tea ro f tha t driv e ma yhav e le d m e t o retire . Th e dependabilit yan d affordabilit ya s wel l a s th e courteousnes s o f thei rstaf f bot h i n Ogdensbur g an d i n Alban yha s mad e doin g busines s wit h Cap e Ai ra pleasure . I'v e gotte n t o kno wmos t o f thei rpilot s an d groun d cre wb ynam e an d loo k forwar d t o seein g then n eac h week . I wan t yo u t o kno wtha t i t i s m ybelie f tha t man yo f m yfello wpassenger s us e thei rai rservic e as a mean s t o d o busines s i n th e Stat e Capita l an d se e th e direc t fligh t servic e as a necessity . I full ysuppor t thei rapplicatio n t o continu e thei rservic e an d hop e tha t the ywil l maintai n th e direc t fligh t schedule s tha t hav e mad e usin g thei rservic e s o convenien t fo rm e an d others .



### Victo rE . Pisan i
#### Miguel Cedillo, Appellant, v Angel M. Rivera et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 238]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated March 8, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ examining neurologist, in his affirmed report, *454merely determined that the plaintiff had full range of motion of the neck but did not set forth what objective testing was done to support that determination, thus rendering it conclusory (see *Schacker v County of Orange,*33 AD3d 903, 904 [2006]; *Ilardo v New York City Tr. Auth.,*28 AD3d 610, 611 [2006]; *Kelly v Rehfeld,*26 AD3d 469, 470 [2006]; *Nembhard v Delatorre,*16 AD3d 390, 391 [2005]). As to the lumbar spine, he merely noted that the plaintiff complained of pain with 90 degrees of flexion and failed to compare that finding to normal, again rendering the finding conclusory (see *Harman v Busch,*37 AD3d 537 [2007]; *Iles v Jonat,*35 AD3d 537, 538 [2006]; *Mirochnik v Ostrovskiy,*35 AD3d 413 [2006]; *Kavanagh v Singh,*34 AD3d 744, 745-746 [2006]; *Caracci v Miller,*34 AD3d 515 [2006]; *Agathe v Tun Chen Wang,*33 AD3d 737, 738 [2006]; *Mondi v Keahon,*32 AD3d 506 [2006]; *Benitez v Mileski,*31 AD3d 473, 474 [2006]). The defendants’ examining orthopedic surgeon, in his affirmed report, set forth range of motion findings as to the plaintiffs cervical spine, lumbar spine, and knees, but failed to compare those findings to the normal ranges of motion for those regions of the plaintiff’s body, rendering the determination conclusory *(see Harman v Busch, supra; Iles v Jonat, supra).*Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the submissions by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Ayotte v Gervasio,*81 NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993]; *Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          43,254                 258,250
<SECURITIES>                                 3,105,678               2,217,316
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,867                 735,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (15,000)               (167,793)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          45,235                  78,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (25,000)                (43,885)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,285,034               3,077,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,220                  39,307
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,511                  50,511
<COMMON>                                       128,307                 128,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,068,996               2,859,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,285,034               3,077,691
<SALES>                                         94,496                  92,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,496                  92,067
<CGS>                                           72,854                  84,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,854                  84,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,642                   7,532
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,500                   1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,142                   5,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,142                   5,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
### §21022. Amount of payment

#### (a) In general

The amount of a payment made to an eligible State or an eligible unit of local government for a year under this subpart shall be determined by the Secretary.

#### (b) Continuing availability of funds after appropriation

A payment made to an eligible State or eligible unit of local government under this subpart shall be available without fiscal year limitation.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title II, §262, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1698.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15422 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
EXHIBIT 32.4



Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of
Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stevan R. Schott, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 9thday of August, 2004.



/s/ Stevan R. SchottStevan R. SchottSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, who will retain it and furnish a copy to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



46
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Summervisitor guide, Mesa Verde: the official visitor guide to Mesa Verde NationalPark**
 
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.21/2:M 56/
Item Number:0650-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000983075
 
May 29, 2018
EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-51200, 333-85321, 33-21092, 33-41509,
33-41515, 33-50510, 33-80838, 33-39091 and 333-103310) of CyberOptics
Corporation or our report dated February 6, 2003 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of CyberOptics Corporation as of December 31,
2002 and 2001 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2002 which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 6 , 2003
relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
MARCH 26, 2003
Order entered September 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00705-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.T., ET AL., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-17-00491-X

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s September 25, 2018 first motion to extend time to file 

briefs. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the briefs be filed no later than October 1, 2018. 

We caution the State that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
§ 147.11 Guideline I—Emotional, mental, and personality disorders. ( a ) *The concern:* Emotional, mental, and personality disorders can cause a significant deficit in an individual's psychological, social and occupation functioning. These disorders are of security concern because they may indicate a defect in judgment, reliability, or stability. A credentialed mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist), employed by, acceptable to or approved by the government, should be utilized in evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information fully and properly, and particularly for consultation with the individual's mental health care provider.
( b ) *Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:* ( 1 ) An opinion by a credentialed mental health professional that the individual has a condition or treatment that may indicate a defect in judgment, reliability, or stability;
( 2 ) Information that suggests that an individual has failed to follow appropriate medical advice relating to treatment of a condition, e.g., failure to take prescribed medication;
( 3 ) A pattern of high-risk, irresponsible, aggressive, anti-social or emotionally unstable behavior;
( 4 ) Information that suggests that the individual's current behavior indicates a defect in his or her judgment or reliability.
( c ) *Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:* ( 1 ) There is no indication of a current problem;
( 2 ) Recent opinion by a credentialed mental health professional that an individual's previous emotional, mental, or personality disorder is cured, under control or in remission and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;
( 3 ) The past emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one caused by a death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been resolved, and the individual is no longer emotionally unstable.