alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, A. P. Kimble, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of North Pittsburgh Systems, 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially 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 theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 16, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE 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 UQM Technologies, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended March 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the informationcontained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

| /s/ William G. Rankin
William G. Rankin
Chairman, President and    Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Donald A. French
Donald A. French
Treasurer, Secretary and    Chief Financial Officer
Date:  June 6, 2006

 

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:35 PM

To: Robert Strieter; Charles D. Johnson; davidwagger@isri.org

Cc: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com

Subject: Secondary Aluminum ICR - Submittal of Test Data

I have received some questions concerning what information would be needed from the test reports 

since they can be quite voluminous. The data that we need is listed below. We would like to receive 

that information in electronic format, if available. (Email to secondaryicr@epa.gov) If the reports are 

available electronically, then we do not expect them to sort out sections of the report. The whole 

report is acceptable. It may be possible that we will contact a facility to ask questions about analytical 

data, raw field data, calibration sheets and data quality control, if we need it. 

1) Test date 

2) Start, Duration and End time for each test 

3) Process Summary 

4) Narrative and Project Summary from the laboratory 

5) Emitting equipment involved 

6) Control devices involved 

7) Emission standard 

8) Individual run results and overall average--production based numbers 

9) Throughput 

10) Is it part of a SAPU? 

11) Test methods 

12 Flux rate and flux ID(s), if applicable 

13) Lime injection rate, if applicable 

14) Afterburner temperature, if applicable 

We do not want Analytical Data, Raw Field Data, Calibration sheets and Quality Control Data.

Secondly, I got a call asking about a possible extension of the 75 days for completing the ICR. It is 

highly unlikely that we will grant any extensions due to our time constraints. We were originally 

allowing 60 days and I am sure that we are going to have many questions for industry as we QA the 

data and we need a lot of time to do that judging by the time it took us to QA the Primary Aluminum 

data and we have 10 times as many Secondary Aluminum plants. Let me know if you have any 

questions. 

Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov
§ 229.1 Purpose. ( a ) The regulations in this part implement provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm) by establishing the uniform definitions, standards, and procedures to be followed by all Federal land managers in providing protection for archaeological resources, located on public lands and Indian lands of the United States. These regulations enable Federal land managers to protect archaeological resources, taking into consideration provisions of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (92 Stat. 469; 42 U.S.C. 1996), through permits authorizing excavation and/or removal of archaeological resources, through civil penalties for unauthorized excavation and/or removal, through provisions for the preservation of archaeological resource collections and data, and through provisions for ensuring confidentiality of information about archaeological resources when disclosure would threaten the archaeological resources.
( b ) The regulations in this part do not impose any new restrictions on activities permitted under other laws, authorities, and regulations relating to mining, mineral leasing, reclamation, and other multiple uses of the public lands.
#### Village of Glencoe *vs.*County of McLeod.

January 14, 1889.

Money Wrongfully Received — Statute of Limitations — Demand.— Where one wrongfully receives the money of another, a cause of action to recover it accrues to the latter without any demand. Applied to a case where village authorities paid into the county treasury money of the village upon an agreement with the county commissioners, void because the latter had no power to make it.

Plaintiff brought this action in April, 1888, in the district court for McLeod county, to recover money paid by it to defendant. The defendant appeals from an order by *Echón,*J., overruling its demurrer to the complaint, the allegations of which are in substance as follows, to wit: In 1876, for the purpose of providing a suitable hall for the use of the plaintiff and a suitable court-house for the use of the defendant, the parties to this action undertook to make an agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to pay to the defendant, in land and money, $2,500, and defendant agreed, in consideration thereof, to construct a building to be used jointly by plaintiff and defendant for public purposes, upon certain specified terms and conditions. In performance of this agreement, plaintiff, in 1876, paid to defendant, in land and money, $2,500, and defendant caused the building to be erected, and it was thereafter jointly occupied by the parties until September 15,1887, when plaintiff was ejected from it by defendant. Thereupon the plaintiff, claiming that the agreement made in 1876 was void on the part of defendant, on November 10, 1887, demanded a return of said sum of $2,500, which was refused.

*45
      *George M. Nelson*and *John W. Willis,*for appellant.

*R. H. McClelland,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Except as to the claim that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations this case is precisely analogous to that in *Borough of Henderson*v. *County of Sibley,*28 Minn. 515, (11 N. W. Rep. 91.) As in that case, the village authorities paid into the county treasury money of the village, upon an agreement with' the county commissioners absolutely void because the latter had no power to make it. There was no lawful authority on the one side to pay, nor on the other to receive, the money. The payment and receipt of it having been wrongful, a right of action in behalf of the village to recover it accrued at once, without any previous express demand. *Dill*v. *Inhabitants of Wareham, 7*Met. 438; *Earle*v. *Bickford,*6 Allen, 549. It is only where the receipt of money is lawful, as where the owner of it pays or delivers it to another, (even though it be by mistake of fact,) that an express demand before suit is necessary. When the receipt of it is wrongful, as in this ease, the possession continues to be wrongful. The cause of action was therefore barred long before the action was commenced, and the demurrer to the complaint ought on that ground to have been sustained.

Order reversed.
§ 1651.1 Who may appeal to a district appeal board. ( a ) The Director of Selective Service may appeal from any determination of a local board when he deems it necessary to assure the fair and equitable administration of the Selective Service Law: *Provided,* That, no such appeal will be taken after the expiration of the appeal period prescribed in § 1651.2.
( b ) The registrant may appeal to a district appeal board the denial of his claim for a judgmental classification by the local board. The registrant may appeal to a district appeal board the denial of his claim for an administrative classification by the local board whenever its decisions is not unanimous.
[47 FR 4662, Feb. 1, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 24459, July 1, 1987]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          47,569
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,000
<INVENTORY>                                     45,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,177
<PP&E>                                          68,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,721
<OTHER-SE>                                     187,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263,777
<SALES>                                        353,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               353,314
<CGS>                                          116,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               149,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,227
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,227
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Panhandle Oil and Gas Inc.
(the Company);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 Company as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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).
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c).
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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; andd).
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys
auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
 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 Companys ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb).
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control
over financial reporting.
 /s/ Michael C. Coffman

Michael C. CoffmanChief Executive OfficerDate: December 10, 2008
 (60)
§ 536.119 Scope for maritime claims. The AMCSA applies worldwide and includes claims that arise on high seas or within the territorial waters of a foreign country. At 10 U.S.C. 4802 it provides for the settlement or compromise of claims for: ( a ) Damage caused by a vessel of, or in the service of, the Department of the Army (DA) or by other property under the jurisdiction of the DA.
( b ) Compensation for towage and salvage service, including contract salvage, rendered to a vessel of, or in the service of, the DA or other property under the jurisdiction of the DA.
( c ) Damage that is maritime in nature and caused by tortious conduct of U.S. military personnel or federal civilian employees, an agent thereof, or property under the Army's jurisdiction.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.7

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-111310 and 333-10570) of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd.
of our report dated March 10, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet of DEP Technology Holdings Ltd. as of December 31, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2002, which report
appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd.
for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Somekh Chaikin
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
A member of KPMG International

Tel-Aviv, Israel
June 21, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1204 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 1204

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 7, 2024.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Homeland Security: Mr. Kennedy (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Suozzi).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
ENNIS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FORM 10Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2008
 EXHIBIT 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (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.
 /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Date:  June 30, 2008 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
 41
#### John Stuart, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Diriro, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 18, 1978, denying cross motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, with one bill of $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to defendants. John Stuart, Inc. (Stuart), leased space in a building owned by Diriro, Inc. (Diriro), for a term of 20 years, with options to renew. The lease included rental of space on the entire first floor of the building, exclusive of approximately 11,000 square feet, which space was rented to Scalamandre Silks, Inc. (Scalamandre). Stuart’s lease contained a clause providing that the landlord would notify it in writing if "such [Scalamandre’s] first floor space becomes available for occupancy,” and then Stuart was to have five days within which to notify Diriro that it intended to rent the space. Scalamandre’s lease which was entered into prior to Stuart’s contained no allusion to Stuart’s option and contained no prohibition against assignment of its leasehold. Both the Scalamandre and Stuart leases contained a provision that the landlord intended that the building in question have the character of a trade building for the decorative and associated trades, and that the landlord in its discretion would make a reasonable effort to accomplish that end. The lease clause stipulated that the restriction did not apply to- "those types of tenancies inherent to the normal occupancy of a commercial building, which include, but are not limited to, a restaurant, newsstand and theatre.” Scalamandre notified Diriro of its intent to assign its leasehold, and ultimately an assignment was made to the Dime Savings Bank of New York. The present action was brought by Stuart, alleging that the lease agreement gave it exclusive rights to the Scalamandre space. Both *683Stuart and Diriro moved for summary judgment and Special Term denied both motions. We would modify to the extent of granting summary judgment to the defendants. The heart of this action revolves around the phrase in Stuart’s lease which gave it first option to Scalamandre’s space when it "becomes available”. This agreement was between Stuart and the landlord, and the clause in question could only become operative when and if the space came under the landlord’s control and, hence, "available”. Scalamandre’s lease contained no prohibition against assignment and therefore, during the term of that lease, the space could not become available to the landlord absent, of course, a surrender to the landlord by Scalamandre. The assignment by Scalamandre to the bank therefore triggered no obligation upon the landlord to compel assignment to Stuart. We further note that permitting a bank to become a tenant was inherent to normal occupancy of a commercial building and not violative of the lease provisions. Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment in their favor, and we have modified Special Term’s order accordingly. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.