alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I, Catherine Thompson, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of OHANA
ENTERPRISES, 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 amended 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 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.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

       c.      presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

6.     The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 19, 2003

/s/ Catherine Thompson
----------------------
Catherine Thompson
Chief Financial Officer


========================================


<PAGE>
### §8417. Survivor reduction for a former spouse

(a) If an employee or Member has a former spouse who is entitled to a survivor annuity as provided in section 8445, the reduction described in section 8419(a) shall be made.

(b)(1) An employee or Member who has a former spouse may elect, under procedures prescribed by the Office, a reduction in the annuity of the employee or Member under section 8419(a) in order to provide a survivor annuity for such former spouse under section 8445.

(2) An election under this subsection shall be made at the time of retirement or, if the marriage is dissolved after the date of retirement, within 2 years after the date on which the marriage of the former spouse to the employee or Member is so dissolved.

(3) An election under this subsection—

(A) shall not be effective to the extent that it—

(i) conflicts with—

(I) any court order or decree referred to in section 8445(a) which was issued before the date of such election; or

(II) any agreement referred to in such section 8445(a) which was entered into before such date; or

(ii) would cause the total of survivor annuities payable under sections 8442 and 8445, respectively, based on the service of the employee or Member to exceed the amount which would be payable to a widow or widower of such employee or Member under such section 8442 (determined without regard to any reduction to provide for an annuity under such section 8445); and

(B) shall not be effective, in the case of an employee or Member who is then married, unless it is made with the spouse's written consent.

The Office shall by regulation provide that subparagraph (B) may be waived for either of the reasons set forth in section 8416(a)(2).

(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, §101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 530.)
### §5945. Notary public commission expenses

An employee as defined by section 2105 of this title or an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia who is required to serve as a notary public in connection with the performance of official business is entitled to an allowance, established by the agency concerned, not in excess of the expense required to obtain the commission. Funds available to an agency concerned for personal services or general administrative expenses are available to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 514.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 70a. | July 11, 1956, ch. 554, §1, 70 Stat. 519. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 70b. | July 11, 1956, ch. 554, §2, 70 Stat. 520. |

Statutes at Large

In the first sentence, the words "to be incurred by them in order" are omitted as surplusage. The words "from and after January 1, 1955" are omitted as obsolete.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
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

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Serologicals Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 28, 2003 (the "Report") as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 the Company.

Dated:
March 18, 2005

|/s/HAROLD W. INGALLSHarold W. Ingalls
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Robert A. Mariano, Chief Executive Officer of Roundy's, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
            ended December 28, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements 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.

                  Dated: March 27, 2003

                                        /s/ROBERT A. MARIANO
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        Principal Executive Officer

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


                                       97
### §797. Fraud prevention training program

The Administrator shall develop and implement a program to provide training on the prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal disaster relief assistance relating to the response to or recovery from natural disasters and acts of terrorism or other man-made disasters and ways to identify such potential waste, fraud, and abuse.

(Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §698, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1462.)
# C_2017038EN.01002101.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council

(Case T-199/04 RENV) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan - Interest in bringing proceedings - Initiation of the investigation - Constructed normal value - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard at a hearing - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Drawback of import duties - Adjustment - Injury - Causal link - WTO law))

(2017/C 038/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Stobiecka Kuik)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

1

---
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Sionix Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James R. Currier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended;
  and,




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
    Report.




Date:
January 13, 2010




/s/
      James R. CurrierJames
      R. CurrierChief
      Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer




A
certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed “filed” for
purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject
to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates
it by reference.
Fourth Department,

December, 1978

(December 8, 1978)

#### Donald Sullivan et al., Respondents, v Munter's Delivery, Inc., Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs (see Figliomeni v Board *of Educ.,*38 NY2d 178, 183; *Mann v Hunt,*283 App Div 140). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court-set aside verdict.) Present-Marsh, P. J. Moule, Simons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
§ 2001.91 Other agency reporting requirements. ( a ) *Information declassified without proper authority.* Determinations that classified information has been declassified without proper authority shall be promptly reported in writing to the Director of ISOO in accordance with § 2001.13(a).
( b ) *Reclassification actions.* Reclassification of information that has been declassified and released under proper authority shall be reported promptly to the National Security Advisor and the Director of ISOO in accordance with section 1.7(c)(3) of the Order and § 2001.13(b).
( c ) *Fundamental classification guidance review.* The initial fundamental guidance review is to be completed no later than June 27, 2012. Agency heads shall provide a detailed report summarizing the results of each classification guidance review to ISOO and release an unclassified version to the public in accordance with section 1.9 of the Order and § 2001.16(d).
( d ) *Violations of the Order.* Agency heads or senior agency officials shall notify the Director of ISOO when a violation occurs under sections 5.5(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Order and § 2001.48(d).
#### Charles Werbelovsky, Respondent, v. Manufacturers Trust Company et al., Defendants, and Jennie Hertzstein, Appellant.

In an action by a surviving settlor of an *inter vivos*trust: (a) to terminate the trust; (b) to declare the trust void; or (e) to invade the trust principal in order to provide adequately for the care and support of the trust’s life beneficiary, the defendant, Jennie Hertzstein, one of the remaindermen-beneficiaries, appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 8, 1959, denying her motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and (2) from another order of said court, dated the same day, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out the answer. Orders reversed, upon the law, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements; said defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings granted and complaint dismissed; and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Questions of fact have not been considered. The trust instrument does not contain any power in a surviving settlor to revoke the trust. In such event, this plaintiff may not bring an action either to revoke or terminate the trust *(Culver*v. *Title Guar. & Trust Co.,*296 N. Y. 74), nor to enforce the trust (2 Scott, Trusts [2d ed.], § 200.1; 1 Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, § 42), nor to construe the trust *(Levy*v. *Hart,*54 Barb. 248, and cases there cited). In any event, the first cause of action to terminate the trust is insufficient because it is based on the claim that the remainders are contingent. In our opinion they are vested *(Healy*v. *Empire Trust Co.,*276 App. Div. 305, affd. 301 N. Y. 620; *Stringer*v. *Young,*191 N. Y. 157). The second cause of action to declare the trust void is insufficient because it is based on the claim that there is an unlawful and improper accumulation of income and because the trust violates the Statute against Perpetuities. Neither contention is valid. There is no provision in the trust instrument which directs the accumulation of income, and there is only one life involved. The third cause of action to invade the trust principal is insufficient because it is based on the claim that trust principal may be invaded. Where there is no power to invade principal given by the trust instrument, the courts have no power to direct such invasion, even where economic circumstances would warrant the exercise of such discretion *(Matter of Sullard,*247 App. Div. 761; *Matter of Barnett,*182 App. Div. 926, affd. 226 N. Y. 692; *Brandt*v. *Continental Bank & Trust Co.,*43 N. Y. S. 2d 255, affd. 267 App. Div. 890; *Matter of Solomon,*149 Misc. 551). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
<Page>

EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-55234) pertaining to the 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan of
our report dated March 4, 2002, except for Note 22, as to which the date is
April 5, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Security Capital Corporation and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
April 5, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERNEST H. PRIOVOLOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 620 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 17, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 17, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22A1383. IN THE INTEREST OF A. M. S., A CHILD (GUARDIAN AD LITEM) .
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Daniel Wayne Tovar v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-15-00369-CR and 01-15-00370-CR

Trial court case numbers: CR23,522 and CR24,217

Trial court: 20th District Court of Milam County

Our review of the above-referenced appeal requires a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the pre-trial sentencing investigation (PSI) report referenced at the March 13, 2015 

sentencing hearing in the underlying cases. Accordingly, we order that the district court clerk file 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the PSI report by no later than January 6, 2016.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting individually

Date: December 3, 2015
#### (A) In the Matter of the Claim of Thelma Monette, Appellant, v. Pal Blade Company et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (B) In the Matter of the Claim of Grace Rinaldo, Appellant, v. Carrier Corp. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (C) In the Matter of G. Wendell Ensign, Respondent, v. Gladys Klekosky, Appellant. (D) Lena Potis, Plaintiff, v. Paul F. Brown, Defendant.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal [s] granted, without costs.
#### In the Matter of Northerly Corp., Appellant, v. Hermett Realty Corporation, Respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper) directing petitioner to pay respondent $28,900 with interest from May 28, 1962, and directing that the order be docketed as a judgment pursuant to rule 74 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously modified to provide that interest run from December 29, 1962 and further providing that execution on the judgment to be entered be stayed until 10 days after closing to be held on a date to be fixed in the order, at which closing respondent shall tender documents of title. Petitioner brought an action for the appraisal of real estate in accordance with a lease between the parties. An appraisal was had and an order entered directing the petitioner to pay the appraised value, $30,000, subject to adjustments to be fixed at a closing and directing respondent to deliver documents of title and vacate the premises. At the closing adjustments of $1,100 in favor of petitioner were agreed upon and petitioner tendered the balance of $28,900. Respondent tendered documents of title which were made subject to respondent’s appeal from the order. These were not acceptable. Respondent did appeal. Petitioner did obtain possession upon posting a bond but the absence of the appropriate documents puts a cloud on its title. Appellate procedure was completed on December 6, 1962, and resulted in affirmance of the order. On December 20, 1962, respondent requested a closing on December 29, 1962, at which time it offered to deliver the documents and asked to receive the price as fixed at the earlier closing. Petitioner refused on the ground that respondent’s delay in evacuating the premises had caused them damage and in fact they were suing to recover the same. We find no merit in the technical objections .to the order nor in the contention that payment should await the determination of petitioner’s claim for damages. The modifications in Special Term’s order result from the fact that before respondent would be entitled to receive the price it must tender documents of title. There is no dispute as to these as the sole objection to those originally tendered was the reservation of rights pending appeal. Petitioner having made a tender on May 28, 1962, is relieved of interest charges until it was put in default by refusing to accept a tender of the documents which was fixed for December 29, 1962. The closing ordered will provide an orderly method for the exchange. Settle order on notice. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### GMAEHLE, Respondent, v. ROSENBERG et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Charles Gmaehle, as administrator, against Morris Rosenberg and others.

D. Steckler, for appellants. M. Hiliquit, for respondent.

No opinion. On the authority of Gmaehle v. Rosenberg, 83 App. Div. 339, 82 N. Y. Supp. 366, judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to plaintiffs to amend complaint, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
### §8463. Rate of benefits

Each annuity payable from the Fund is stated as an annual amount, one-twelfth of which, rounded to the next lower dollar, constitutes the monthly rate payable on the first business day of the first month beginning after the month for which it has accrued.

(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, §101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 574.)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

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

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

March 7 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk March 7 , 2018

155196 (7 8 )

MICHIGAN GUN OWNERS, INC. and

ULYSSES WONG,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

SC: 155196

v COA: 329632

Washtenaw CC: 15

- 000427

- CZ

ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS and

JEANICE K. SWIFT,

Defendants

- Appellees

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice , the motion of the Michigan Coalition for

Responsible Gun Owners Foundation to extend the time for fil ing a brief amicus curiae is

GRANTED. The amicus brief will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before March

13 , 2018

.