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 2016, 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:  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.  Date: 27 September 2016By:
/s/ BONGANI NQWABABABongani NqwababaJoint President and Chief   Executive OfficerBy:
/s/ STEPHEN CORNELLStephen CornellJoint President and Chief   Executive OfficerDate: 27 September 2015By:
/s/ PAUL VICTORPaul VictorChief 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.
MEMORANDUM

TO: All OIG Managers

Deputy Inspector General

Director, Management Services

 

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority for Domestic Travel 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority from the Chief Financial Officer vested in me by delegation 

EL/GEN/7, certified June 6, 2003, I hereby delegate to you and to anyone serving for you 

in an acting capacity, the authorities described below. These authorities must be exercised 

in accordance with 41 CFR Chapters 300-304, commonly known as the Federal Travel 

Regulation. 

A. To all addressees:

The authority to certify travel authorizations and travel vouchers for temporary 

duty within the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, including: 

1. Authority to approve use of non-contract carriers between defined city pairs. 

2. Authority to approve the use of public transportation between defined 

locations. 

3. Authority to approve the use of privately owned conveyances by employees 

when advantageous to the Government.

4. Authority to approve rental automobile and miscellaneous travel expenses.

B. Deputy Inspector General

The authority to certify travel authorizations and travel vouchers for permanent 

changes of station within the United States. 
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

C. To the Director, Management Services:

The authority to approve, for wheelchair users and if necessary one attendant, 

direct flights and upgrades to business class when bulkhead seating is not 

available. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

cited herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

A. Except as described in Section I, the authority to approve international and 

territorial travel is reserved to the Deputy Secretary.

B. The authority to approve first-class travel accommodations, cash travel advances, 

and actual subsistence expenses over the total allowable per diem rate for each trip 

in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation is reserved to the Director, 

Financial Management Operations, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, or his or 

her delegatee.

C. The authority to certify one’s own travel and voucher expenses is reserved to the 

Inspector General.

III. REDELEGATION

No further redelegation is authorized. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

The delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations 

Control Officer and supersedes delegation control EF/Blanket/137. I hereby ratify actions 

within the scope of this delegation taken by the addressees prior to the date of certification.

________/s/______ 

John P. Higgins, Jr.

Certified Date: 7/7/2004

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EF/Blanket/139
#### Martin Safer, Respondent, v Long Beach Medical Center et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[833 NYS2d 68]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered August 16, 2005, which denied defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under CPLR 214-a, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Appeal from order, same court, Justice and entry date, which granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint so as to add a cause of action for wrongful death, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

In the medical malpractice context, the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel may not be based upon the same misrepresentation or act of concealment which forms the basis of plaintiffs underlying substantive cause of action. In such circumstances, a plaintiffs allegations “do not establish that [a *258physician], acting with knowledge of *prior*malpractice, made *subsequent*misrepresentations in an attempt to conceal his earlier negligence” *(Rizk v Cohen,*73 NY2d 98, 105-106 [1989] [citation omitted]). Therefore, the motion court erred in ruling that defendants are equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense. Defendants’ failure to communicate the results of decedent’s X ray to him may not form the basis of both the malpractice claim and the application of equitable estoppel *(see also Kremen v Brower,*16 AD3d 156 [2005]; *Chesrow v Galiani,*234 AD2d 9, 10-11 [1996]).

The motion court’s attempt to differentiate the negligence upon which the action is based (namely, the failure to diagnose lung cancer) from the claimed basis for the sought estoppel (i.e., the failure to communicate the results of the x-ray study, as promised by the discharge instructions), must fail. The failure to communicate the results of the X ray was not subsequent to and with the knowledge of a prior failure to diagnose lung cancer; the two failures are interconnected. Under these circumstances, the application of equitable estoppel to preclude defendants from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense was in error.

*Harkin v Culleton*(156 AD2d 19 [1990], *lv dismissed*76 NY2d 936 [1990]), relied on by plaintiff, is distinguishable. In *Harkin,*this Court held certain defendants to be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense where the plaintiff was mistakenly diagnosed as having a malignant tumor, as a consequence of which he unnecessarily underwent radiation and chemotherapy, and defendant doctors discovered, as a result of a CT scan taken two years later, that the tumor was benign, and that the treatment then being administered was inappropriate, but allegedly concealed this fact from the plaintiff.

In view of the applicable statute of limitations defense, defendants’ motion should have been granted, and plaintiff’s application to amend the complaint so as to add a wrongful death claim is academic. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,451
<INVENTORY>                                     33,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,605
<PP&E>                                          46,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,345
<BONDS>                                         11,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           532
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,658
<SALES>                                        158,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,132
<CGS>                                          111,124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,151
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Henry Espejo, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, October 18, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Charles P. Kocoras:Status hearing held on

10/18/2012. All discovery to be completed by 12/4/2012. Status hearing continued to

12/4/2012 at 9:30 a.m.Mailed notice(sct, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:233
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 13.(a)(1)

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ENACTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Ricoh Company, Ltd. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shiro Kondo,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  June 29, 2007

                                       By: /s/ Shiro Kondo
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Shiro Kondo
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
(April 12, 2007)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gultela Qasem, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 465]—

Carpinello, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered February 28, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court (Herrick, J.), rendered February 28, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant was charged with various crimes in two separate indictments. She pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of the first indictment and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of the second indictment. Her *961subsequent motion to withdraw her pleas was denied and she was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 3 to 6 years for the criminal sede conviction and 2 to 4 years for the criminal possession conviction. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Defendant maintains that, because of her history of mental health problems, County Court erred, first, in accepting her guilty pleas and, second, in denying her motion to withdraw the pleas. A review of the record confirms that County Court was aware of defendant’s mental health condition and, as a result, engaged in a thorough colloquy during each allocution, ensuring that defendant understood the nature of the charges, her rights and the consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant, in turn, expressed her full comprehension, freely admitted the facts underlying the respective crimes and pleaded guilty thereto. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent and voluntary and, as such, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw the pleas *(see People v Lawrence,*34 AD3d 984, 984-985 [2006]; *People v Kagonyera,*23 AD3d 840, 841 [2005]).

Defendant also contends that her sentences are harsh and excessive. Inasmuch as defendant’s appeal waivers were invalid *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]), her contention is properly before us. However, nothing in the record demonstrates an abuse of discretion on the part of County Court or the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentences *(see People v Lowe,*34 AD3d 979, 980-981 [2006]; *People v Thompson,*33 AD3d 1131,1131 [2006]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 27, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00194-CV 

PAUL FAIRCHILD, Appellant 

V. 

COP ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19735 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Carlyle 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated May 8, 2024, we 

informed appellant his brief was overdue and directed appellant to file a brief within 

ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal 

of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, 

appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding 

the status of this appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

240194F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

PAUL FAIRCHILD, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00194-CV V. 

COP ENTERPRISES, LLC, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 191st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19735. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered June 27, 2024
#### In the Matter of John Lo Pinto, an Attorney, Respondent. New York State Bar Association, Petitioner.

Third Department,

July 12, 1963.

*181
      *Donald A. MacHarg*for petitioner.

*Paul R. Shanahan*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The evidence establishes respondent’s guilt- of professional misconduct consisting (1) of acts of marked and repeated disrespect to the Ithaca City Court in yelling and shouting at the Presiding Judge in the course of a noisy quarrel with the Judge and an Assistant District Attorney upon an application for bail; (2) of acts of abuse and vilification of the same prosecutor, a young and recent appointee, in open court on the same and a subsequent occasion, respondent falsely accusing him of gambling, applying to him both offensive and derisive epithets and threatening or suggesting a physical attack upon him; and (3) of abusive acts in the Cortland City Court in calling the city prosecutor a liar and exhibiting contempt for his youth and inexperience. Thus, there were clear violations of canons 1, 17 and 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and these on the part of a mature and skillful lawyer and without any provocation or justification whatsoever.

The proof of these acts is especially disturbing because they followed petitioner’s solemn assurance to this court (in the course of an investigation into his conduct) that he would so govern himself as to avoid any misconduct similar to that of which he was then accused in rather frequently abusing and vilifying other lawyers with whom he was engaged in litigation and, indeed, in threatening and inflicting physical violence upon some of them.

We have, on the other hand, given weight to the testimony of lawyers of high standing and repute that respondent has made substantial progress in curbing these indefensible tendencies; and we have given consideration, also, to the fact that no dereliction has been shown during the three years that have elapsed since the incidents here complained of.

Respondent should be censured.

Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.
#### § 809a.0 Purpose.

This part prescribes the commanders' authority for enforcing order within or near Air Force installations under their jurisdiction and controlling entry to those installations. It provides guidance for use of military personnel in controlling civil disturbances and in supporting disaster relief operations. This part applies to installations in the United States, its territories and possessions, and will be used to the maximum extent possible in the overseas commands. Instructions issued by the appropriate overseas commander, status of forces agreements, and other international agreements provide more definitive guidance for the overseas commands. Nothing in this part should be construed as authorizing or requiring security forces units to collect and maintain information concerning persons or organizations having no affiliation with the Air Force other than a list of persons barred from the installation.
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:372
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:373
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:374
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:375
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:376
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:377
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:378
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:379
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:380
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:381
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:382
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:383
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:384
Case: 1:11-cv-09124 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:385
#### In the Matter of John Richardson, Appellant, v. Ralph Shapiro, as Mayor of the City of Oswego, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing the petition and denying motion by attorney for petitioner for fixing of his fee.) Present—-Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Date Location Take Off/Land Flight Duration Battery Number Weather Maintenance (Firmware, etc...)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

May 13. 2009 

Michael H. Scheible 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

Post Office Box 28 1 5 

Sacramento, .CA 958 12 

/On April 6, 2009, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. 

Antelope Valley ( 46 1 1 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 

Placer County 1 516 I Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits 

APCDIAQMD 

San Joaquin Valley 4 103 / Open Burning 

South Coast 1 1125 1 Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coating 

Rule # 

Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical 

Plants 

Rule Title 

South Coast 

South Coast 

-- South Coast 

South Coast 

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the 

complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1 10(k). 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at 

(4 15) 947-4 120. 

1149 

1 15 1 

1162 

Deborah Jordan w' 

Operations 

Storage Tank and Pipeline Cleaning and Degassing 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment NonAssembly Line Coating Operations 

Polyester Resin Operations 

Director, Air Division 

1173 ( Control of VOC Leaks and Releases from 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
Cc: Mr. Eldon Heaston 

Executive Director 

Antelope Valley AQNlD 

Mr. Thomas J. Christofk, APCO 

Placer County APCD 

Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 

Dr. Bany Wallerstein 

Executive Officer 

South Coast AQMD 

Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, Chief 

Program Evaluation Branch, CARB
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00191]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its 
continuation on January 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 1050 First Street, NE, Washington, DC (This meeting will be a 
virtual meeting).

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-00191 Filed 1-5-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
### §433. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 433 was editorially reclassified as section 399 of this title.
#### In re HADLEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Application of Walter M. Hadley for the examination of John B. Porter, impleaded, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10

costs and disbursements.

McLENNAN, P. J., dissents.