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

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 20-F (the Report) of QIWI plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Sergey Solonin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alexander Karavaev, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Sergey Solonin    
|Name:                  |  | Sergey Solonin         
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  |  | March 22, 2017         
|                      
|/s/ Alexander Karavaev
|Name:                  |  | Alexander Karavaev     
|Title:                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                  |  | March 22, 2017         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
#### § 501.14 Notice to Environmental Protection Agency.

A copy of any proposed rule or order that imposes a prohibition, order that imposes a prohibition, or a petition for an exemption or permit, shall be transmitted for comments, if any, to the Administrator and the appropriate Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Administrator of EPA shall be given the same opportunity to comment and question as is given other interested persons.

[54 FR 52891, Dec. 22, 1989]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT I, James Benenson, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of B.H.I.T. Inc., certify
that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of B.H.I.T. 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 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrant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)) for the registrant
and we 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 registrant is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness 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 on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report 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 has materially 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 the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  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 registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: August 2, 2004
    By:
    /s/ James Benenson, Jr.James Benenson, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                      24,138,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,615,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                   653,586
<INVENTORY>                                 16,061,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,123,214
<PP&E>                                      32,888,384
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,339,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,372,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,750,906
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,588
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,898,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,372,331
<SALES>                                     52,859,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,859,523
<CGS>                                       19,263,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,263,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (75,627)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,313,891
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,063,576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,250,315
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,250,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
PGI 216.505-70 Orders under multiple-award

contracts.

(b) For task orders issued under multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity services

contracts, contracting officers shall, when minimum labor category qualifications exist in the

underlying contract–

(1) Ensure solicitations contain minimum labor category qualifications deemed necessary for

successful task order performance, such as education and years of work experience, that are

consistent with the contract’s requirements;

(2) When allowed under the terms of the contract, identify any exceptions from labor category

qualifications, such as education and years of work experience, proposed by the contractor as an

alternative. When exceptions exist, contracting officers shall –

(i) Identify any proposed exception from the labor category qualifications in the contract file,

considering any potential performance and price impacts on the agency’s requirements, and

(ii) Document the reasons for accepting any proposed alternatives to the contract requirements; and

(3) Include verification procedures within the quality assurance surveillance plan to ensure

contractor personnel providing the service meet qualification requirements identified for the labor

categories specified in the task order and contract. Verification, such as validation of contractor

personnel education and years of relevant work experience, ensures the Government receives

adequate services, as identified in task order and contract performance requirements (see FAR

46.104 and 46.407).

Parent topic: PGI 216.505 Ordering.
Request for Information Captain Ron's Drone Flying Service (FAA-2015-3046) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Strac: 

 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3046). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

 

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, 

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from 

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 13, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:06 AM 

To: ronstrac@gmail.com
No. 47,693

#### Agnes Ruth (Kearse) Badger, *Appellee,*v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, *Appellant.*

(546 P. 2d 214)

Opinion filed December 1, 1975.

*William G. Haynes,*of Eidson, Lewis, Porter and Haynes, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.

*Ernest J. Young,*assistant attorney general, argued the cause, and *Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, was with him on the brief for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harman, C.:

This is an appeal by an employer from a district court judgment upholding an order of the Kansas commission on civil rights finding the employer guilty of discrimination against an employee because of her race and directing her reinstatement and payment of compensatory damages. Discrimination allegedly occurred during two separate periods of appellant Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s employment of the complainant, appellee Agnes Ruth (Kearse) Badger.

The trial court entered its judgment on May 29, 1974, upholding the commission’s actions. In doing so it applied the “standard” rules governing the scope of judicial review of an order of an administrative agency and more particularly those set out in *Jenkins v. Newman Memorial County Hospital,*212 Kan. 92, 510 P. 2d 132, a civil rights proceeding decided May 12, 1973'. In *Jenkins*we said by way of dicta that if called upon to construe the statute providing for an appeal to the district court from an order made by the civil rights commission (K. S.A. 44-1011) we would hold that judicial review would be limited to determining whether, as a matter of law, (1) the commission acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously; (2) its order is supported by substantial evidence, and (3) the order is within the scope of its authority.

*219We have now receded from this interpretation of 44-1011. In *Stephens v. Unified School District,*218 Kan. 220, 546 P. 2d 197, we specifically disapproved the foregoing scope of judicial review stated in *Jenkins*and in lieu held:

> On appeal from a decision of the commission on civil rights the district court is to try the matter *de novo,*with the issues of both law and fact to be determined anew. The issues in such a trial, however, are limited to those fairly embraced within the appealing party’s application for rehearing before the commission.” (Syl. ¶ 7.)

It follows that the judgment appealed from here must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial *de novo*in accordance with the rules stated in *Stephens.*It is so ordered.

APPROVED BY THE COURT.

Miller, J., not participating.

Fromme, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in *Stephens v. Unified School District,*218 Kan. 220, 546 P. 2d 197.
Corporate Governance Principles



 Exhibit 10.(jj) 
 RECOUPMENT POLICY 
 The Recoupment Policy provides a framework for the
recovery of compensation delivered to any member of Executive Management whose intentional acts, or failures to act, are responsible in whole, or in part, for the material restatement of the Corporation’s publicly filed financial results due to
fraud or misconduct, including gross negligence, on the part of such executive. The Policy is intended to ensure that members of Executive Management act in the best interest of the Corporation and its shareholders. 
 The Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, will (1) evaluate the circumstances of any material restatement of the Corporation’s financial
statements and determine whether fraud or misconduct, including gross negligence, involving intentional acts, or failures to act, on the part of any member of Executive Management was responsible in whole, or in part, for the restatement;
(2) determine the time period involved with, and subsequent periods affected by, any such fraud or misconduct, and (3) determine the amount of compensation that should be recouped in each case in the event such fraud or misconduct is
determined to have occurred. 
 In the event the Board determines that recoupment of compensation is warranted, the Board may take appropriate
action, including, but not limited to, the following: 
  

	 	(i)	for the period restated or affected by the restatement, which may include any period during which the fraud or misconduct occurred, demand repayment, or effect the
cancellation, of some or all of: 

  

	 	(a)	any bonus, or incentive compensation, received or awarded for the period to the extent that the amount of the bonus, or incentive compensation, that would have been
awarded to the member of Executive Management had the financial results been properly reported would have been lower than the amount actually awarded, 

  

	 	(b)	any gains realized as a result of exercising an option during, or awarded for performance during, the period, 

  

	 	(c)	any gains realized as a result of the vesting or payment of long-term incentives during, or awarded for performance during, the period, and/or 


 

	 	(d)	any equity compensation awarded during, or based upon performance for, the period, and/or 

  

	 	(ii)	reduce future compensation as a means to recover the amount the Board determines should be recouped. 

 This policy may be reviewed and revised by the Board on a periodic basis.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 11-1885/2172

___________

Robert Collin Houseal, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 27, 2011

Filed: November 1, 2011

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Collin Houseal appeals the tax court’s1

dismissal of his petitions challenging notices of deficiency (NODs) for tax years 2006

and 2007. The Commissioner has moved for sanctions against Houseal. 

After careful review, Campbell v. Comm’r, 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir.

1999) (standards of review for tax court decisions), we conclude that the tax court

properly dismissed both petitions for the reasons explained by the court. We also

The Honorable Peter J. Panuthos, Special Trial Judge, United States Tax 1

Court.
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $1,000 penalty on

Houseal for filing a frivolous and groundless petition primarily for delay. See 26

U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1)(A), (B) (tax court may impose penalty not in excess of $25,000

where taxpayer maintains proceeding primarily for delay or takes frivolous or

groundless position); May v. Comm’r, 752 F.2d 1301, 1305 (8th Cir. 1985)

(reviewing § 6673 penalty for abuse of discretion).

Specifically, we find frivolous the arguments Houseal raised in the tax court,

and again on appeal, that his income was not taxable. See United States v. Clayton,

506 F.3d 405, 412 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (rejecting as frivolous and absurd,

argument that income derived from sources within United States is not taxable);

United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474, 475-76 (3d Cir. 2005) (argument that

domestically earned wages of United States citizens are exempt from taxes has been

universally discredited); see also In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1989)

(imposing appellate sanctions for frivolous argument that federal tax laws do not

apply to resident United States citizens). We also find meritless his arguments that

the NODS were invalid. See Sather v. Comm’r, 251 F.3d 1168, 1176-77 (8th Cir.

2001) (NOD must indicate deficiency has been determined and identify taxpayer,

taxable year involved, and amount of deficiency); Geiselman v. United States, 961

F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (tax code does not require Commissioner to

prepare substitute for return before determining and issuing NOD). 

Finally, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we

determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. In

this case, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. See United States v. Gerads,

999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s dismissals, and we grant the

Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000.

 ______________________________

-2-
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

GRADY CLIFFORD SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

 

HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING 

ALABAMA, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

2:06-cv-745-WKW-CSC 

CORPORATE/CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 In accordance with the order of this Court, Defendant Hyundai Motor Manufacturing 

Alabama, LLC (“HMMA”) hereby makes the following disclosure concerning parent companies, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, partnership, joint ventures, debtor, creditors’ committee, or other entities

reportable under the provisions of the Middle District of Alabama’s General Order No. 3047: 

 The following entities are hereby reported: 

 Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC is a single member limited liability 

company. Its single member is Hyundai Motor America, whose parent company is Hyundai 

Motor Company, Ltd, which is traded on the Korean Stock Exchange. 

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of March, 2007. 

 /s/ T. Scott Kelly 

 J. Trent Scofield (ASB-1191-E67J) 

 Sandra B. Reiss (ASB-3650-S80S) 

 T. Scott Kelly (ASB-0345-O50K) 

 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

 SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

One Federal Place, Suite 1000 

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

Telephone: (205) 328-1900 

Facsimile: (205) 328-6000 

scott.kelly@odnss.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Hyundai Motor 

Manufacturing Alabama, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 9th day of March, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Corporate Disclosure Statement with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which 

will send notification of such filing to the following: Cynthia Forman Wilkinson and Scott 

Harwell. 

 

 /s/ T. Scott Kelly 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

One Federal Place, Suite 1000 

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Telephone: (205)328-1900 

Facsimile: (205)328-6000 

scott.kelly@odnss.com 

 

 

4699356.1 

Case 2:06-cv-00745-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31670]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


National Science Board; Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice of 
Cancellation of a Teleconference Meeting

    The National Science Board's Subcommittee on Facilities, pursuant 
to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science Foundation 
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine 
Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the cancellation 
of a teleconference meeting.
    The National Science Board's Subcommittee on Facilities 
teleconference meeting scheduled for December 15, 2010, at 11 a.m. to 
12:30 p.m., to discuss NSF Principles & Portfolio Review, and Future 
Budgetary Issues FY 2012 and beyond, located at the National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, is hereby 
cancelled.
    Point of contact for this meeting is: Jennie Moehlmann, National 
Science Board Office, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 292-7000.

Daniel A. Lauretano,
Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-31670 Filed 12-14-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P