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 China Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Li Feilie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



/s/ Li Feilie

Li Feilie

Chief Executive Officer

April 27, 2015

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2228 

To increase assessment accuracy to better measure student achievement and 

provide States with greater flexibility on assessment design. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2013 

Mr. PETRI (for himself and Mr. BUTTERFIELD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To increase assessment accuracy to better measure student 

achievement and provide States with greater flexibility 

on assessment design. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assessment Accuracy 

5 and Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENTS. 

7 Section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu8 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is amended by add9 ing at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(n) USE OF ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENTS.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2228 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

2 provision of this Act, a State may provide that the 

3 assessments to be used to measure student achieve4 ment by that State, and by the schools and local 

5 educational agencies of that State, shall be adaptive 

6 assessments (rather than the assessments otherwise 

7 required by this Act) that accurately assess student 

8 achievement above and below grade level while also 

9 measuring grade-level performance. 

10 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of paragraph 

11 (1), an adaptive assessment is an assessment that 

12 changes its difficulty according to the performance 

13 of a student but reports the outcome of the assess14 ment on a scale that is common to all students. 

15 ‘‘(3) EVALUATION.—The Secretary shall ensure 

16 that the protocol for evaluating the adaptive assess17 ments is included in peer review guidance docu18 ments.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Jack Pearlstein, Chief Financial Officer ofSolera Holdings, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Solera Holdings, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

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

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:May 13, 2008

 
|       |                        |
|------------|-----------------------------|
|       | /s/  Jack Pearlstein        |
| ** ** | **Jack Pearlstein**         |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of Cascade Technologies Corp. (the Company) on Form 10QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, Bruce Hollingshead, Chief Executive Officer and I, Christine Thomas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:

January 18, 2008

/s/ Bruce Hollingshead

Bruce Hollingshead, CEO





/s/ Christine Thomas

Christine Thomas, CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEAR ENDED JUN-30-1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000794929
<NAME> SCIENTIFIC NRG INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,812
<INVENTORY>                                     88,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,981
<PP&E>                                          26,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          405,231
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,166,050
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,231
<SALES>                                        544,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               544,249
<CGS>                                          418,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             101,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (485,539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (486,339)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (486,339)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
#### Maryann Moss et al., Respondents, v Marie Kalodemas, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., in which an order had been entered, upon defendant’s default, granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar, defendant appeals.(1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 6, 1979, which denied her motion for "reargument” of the order vacating the dismissal (the motion was, in fact, one to vacate defendant’s default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion) and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated April 6, 1979, as, upon granting reargument of the March 6, 1979 order and vacating said order, denied her motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion. Appeal from the order dated March 6, 1979 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was vacated by the order dated April 6, 1979. Order dated April 6, 1979 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion is granted, the order granting the plaintiffs’ motion, dated December 7, 1978, is vacated, and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar is denied. Defendant’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal should have been granted considering the fact that plaintiffs’ motion papers were mailed to an address long since abandoned by defendant’s attorneys. On the merits, plaintiffs’ *593motion should be denied as their eight years’ delay in moving to vacate the dismissal cannot be excused by the asserted confusion in their attorney’s files resulting from two burglaries and inability to secure clerical help (see *Tepperman v Peri,*29 AD2d 893). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CLARENCE J. WILKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 24, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying

Plaintiff’s applications for supplemental security income benefits filed under Title XVI of the

Social Security Act, be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation

on Monday, January 29, 2007. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and have

been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,

Section 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an

objection has been made. In this instance, however, no objections were made. 

After an initial hearing and several supplemental hearings, the Administrative Law

Judge, relying on the grids and the testimony of an expert witness, found that because Plaintiff

could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, he was not

disabled. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed if it is

supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards have been applied. Graham v.

Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge

 did not consider Plaintiff’s pain and fatigue, and therefore the Administrative Law Judge’s

Case 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK Document 25 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00106-Mp-AK

finding that he could perform a significant range of light work is not supported by substantial

evidence.

As the Magistrate points out, the Administrative Law Judge considered Plaintiff’s

allegations of pain and fatigue, but did not find them entirely credible based upon the medical

evidence. The Court agrees with the Magistrate that the Administrative Law Judge had

substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain. The expert testimony

and medical evidence provided the Administrative Law Judge with ample evidence to conclude

that Plaintiff could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, and

therefore was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Therefore, having considered the

Report and Recommendation, I have determined that it should be adopted. Accordingly, it is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Doc. 24, is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order;

2. The decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is AFFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK Document 25 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

Case No. 3:19-md-2885

This document relates to:

Aaron A. Neglia

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

Case No. 8:20-cv-09830

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Comes now R. SCOTT VINCENT, with the law firm of WILLIAMS MCDANIEL, 

PLLC, and gives notice that he will appear as counsel of record for Aaron A. Neglia in the 

Master Docket pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 3 [ECF No. 4]. Mr. Vincent has completed the 

administrative requirements outlined in Pretrial Order No. 3, and has been granted admission 

pro hac vice pursuant to paragraph IV.A of Pretrial Order No. 3. Counsel respectfully requests 

that all notices, correspondence, filings and other papers in the Master Docket of MDL 2885 

be served upon him at the address listed below.

This the 23rd day of January, 2023.

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAMS McDANIEL, PLLC

By: /s/ R. Scott Vincent

R. Scott Vincent (#021055)

717 S. White Station Road, Suite 1

Memphis, Tennessee 38117

(901) 766-0887 (Phone)

(901) 766-0915 (Facsimile)

svincent@williamsmcdaniel.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3642 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of January, 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and served using the CM/ECF 

system.

/s/ R. Scott Vincent

R. Scott Vincent

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3642 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 11-1

THE NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS    Earnings Per Share of Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents    (In thousands, except per share data)

|                                                  |  | Year Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|
|Net income applicable to common stock             |  | $                      
|Average number of common shares outstanding       |  |                        
|Net income per shareBasic                        |  | $                      
|Average number of common shares outstanding       |  |                        
|Add: Assumed exercise of stock options and grants |  |                        
|                                                  |  |                        
|Common and common equivalent shares outstanding   |  |                        
|                                                  |  |                        
|Net income per shareDiluted                      |  | $                      

---

QuickLinks
§ 1c.110 Expedited review procedures for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research. ( a ) The Secretary of HHS has established, and published as a Notice in the Federal Register, a list of categories of research that may be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure. The Secretary will evaluate the list at least every 8 years and amend it, as appropriate, after consultation with other federal departments and agencies and after publication in the Federal Register for public comment. A copy of the list is available from the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office.
( b ) ( 1 ) An IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review the following: ( i ) Some or all of the research appearing on the list described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the reviewer determines that the study involves more than minimal risk;
( ii ) Minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized; or
( iii ) Research for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption under § 1c.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7) and (8).
( 2 ) Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the nonexpedited procedure set forth in § 1c.108(b).
( c ) Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure shall adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals that have been approved under the procedure.
( d ) The department or agency head may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of the expedited review procedure.
#### § 29.2277 Leaf scrap.

A byproduct of unstemmed tobacco. Leaf scrap results from handling unstemmed tobacco and consists of tangled whole or broken leaves.
##### 



EXHIBIT 11-1
  THE NAVIGATORS
    GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
    Earnings Per Share of Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents
 ($ and shares in thousands,
    except per share data)
  Year Ended December 31,2007

2006

2005Net income applicable to common stock

$
95,620

$
72,563

$
23,564Average number of common shares outstanding


16,812


16,722


13,528Net income per shareBasic

$
5.69

$
4.34

$
1.74Average number of common shares outstanding


16,812


16,722


13,528Add: Assumed exercise of stock options and vesting of stock
    grants


193


134


129Common and common equivalent shares outstanding


17,005


16,856


13,657Net income per shareDiluted

$
5.62

$
4.30

$
1.73
Exhibit 7



Computation of Ratios for Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2012, 2013 and 2014



|                                                                      |  |  |  |           |   |  |           |  |  |         |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------- | - |  | --------- |  |  | ------- |  | 
|                                                                      |  |  |  | 2012      |   |  | 2013      |  |  | 2014    |  | 
|                                                                      |  |  |  | CNY000   |   |  | CNY000   |  |  | CNY000 |  | 
|Current assets (a)                                                    |  |  |  | 347,255   |   |  | 2,997,211 |  |  | 62,524  |  | 
|Current liabilities (b)                                               |  |  |  | 1,097,879 |   |  | 2,568,144 |  |  | 37,827  |  | 
|Current ratio (c=a/b)                                                 |  |  |  | 0.32      |   |  | 1.17      |  |  | 1.65    |  | 
|Working capital (d=a-b)                                               |  |  |  | (750,624  | ) |  | 429,067   |  |  | 24,697  |  | 
|Short-term bank loans and current portion of long-term bank loans (e) |  |  |  | 443,900   |   |  |          |  |  |        |  | 
|Mining rights payable  current (f)                                   |  |  |  | 25,568    |   |  |          |  |  |        |  | 
|Long-term bank loans (g)                                              |  |  |  | 569,630   |   |  |          |  |  |        |  | 
|Mining rights payable  non-current (h)                               |  |  |  | 77,810    |   |  |          |  |  |        |  | 
|Total interest-bearing debt (i=e+f+g+h)                               |  |  |  | 1,116,908 |   |  |          |  |  |        |  | 
|Total shareholders equity (j)                                        |  |  |  | 546,875   |   |  | 255,518   |  |  | 22,614  |  | 
|Total capital (k=i+j)                                                 |  |  |  | 1,663,783 |   |  | 255,518   |  |  | 22,614  |  | 
|Ratio of interest-bearing debt to Total capital (l=i/k)               |  |  |  | 67.13%    |   |  |          |  |  |        |  |