alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31(a)**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William J. Doyle, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Potash Corporationof Saskatchewan Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
   By: /s/ William J. Doyle
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 .
  1.
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Date:  May 14, 2009
    /s/ C. Brett BurfordC. BRETT BURFORDChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                                     3,532,837
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                229,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            24,856,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                20,601,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              24,856,327
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           4,837,128
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              3,089,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              64,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              34,095
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           200,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            1,449,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        1,449,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                               1,449,241
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32

Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does
hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the
Form 10-Q), of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 7, 2003

| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLE                     
| |                                          
| | William J. Doyle                         
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

Dated: August 7, 2003

| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | /s/ WAYNE R. BROWNLEE                          
| |                                                
| | Wayne R. Brownlee                              
| | Senior Vice President, Treasurer, and
    Chief
| | Financial Officer                              

The foregoing certification is being furnished as
an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to
Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-K, section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-Q.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION January 1 8 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) FROM: Angela Cullen TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on Tue s day , January 1 8 , 2011 b etween EMA , NHTSA and EPA and included the following individuals: EMA: Tim Blubaugh - EMA, Jed Mandel – EMA, Tony Cook – Navistar, Patrick Charbonneau – Navistar, David Kayes – Daimler, Dan Kieffer – PACCAR , Margaret Sullivan – PACCAR, Brian Mormino - Cummins, Jackie Yeager – Cummins, Tony Greszler – Volvo, Marc Miller – Volvo, Brian Burton – Daimler, Tom Sloane – PACCAR, Jack Gehring – Caterpillar, Don Keski - Hy nnila – Detroit Diesel NHTSA/DOT: James Tamm, Maurice Hicks, Coralie Cooper EPA: By ron Bunker , Chuck Moulis , and Angela Cullen The discussion focused on vehicl e certification process; tractor and vocational vehicle definitions; vehicle speed limiters; determination of aerodyn amic performance; credit fungibility ; tire warranty; small business exemptions; innovative credits; and deterioration factors.
EXHIBIT
32.1







SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











The
undersigned officer of Summit Financial Corporation (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report), that, to
such officer's knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.







Date:
      May 11, 2005J.
      Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive
Officer











The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Summit Financial Corporation and will be retained by Summit Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50358

VINCENT ALONZO CORSON,

Petitioner

- Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Weste rn District of Texas USDC No. 6:19

- CV

- 196

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A member of this panel previously denied appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability. The panel has considered appellant’s motion for

reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 12, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50358 Document: 00515234637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2019No. 19

- 50358



### 2 The Court has

– to the best of its ability

– discerned and considered the arguments set forth in Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Upon review of

the District Court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application and this Court’s denial of his certificate of appealability, the Court finds no grounds to grant the relief Petitioner now seeks. Case: 19-50358 Document: 00515234637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2019
#### § 1.7702-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the captions that appear in §§ 1.7702-1, 1.7702-2, and 1.7702-3.

## § 1.7702-1 Mortality charges.

(a) General rule.

(b) Reasonable mortality charges.

(1) Actually expected to be imposed.

(2) Limit on charges.

(c) Safe harbors.

(1) 1980 C.S.O. Basic Mortality Tables.

(2) Unisex tables and smoker/nonsmoker tables.

(3) Certain contracts based on 1958 C.S.O. table.

(d) Definitions.

(1) Prevailing commissioners' standard tables.

(2) Substandard risk.

(3) Nonparticipating contract.

(4) Charge reduction mechanism.

(5) Plan of insurance.

(e) Effective date.

## § 1.7702-2 Attained age of the insured under a life insurance contract.

(a) In general.

(b) Contract insuring a single life.

(c) Contract insuring multiple lives on a last-to-die basis.

(1) In general.

(2) Modifications to cash value and future mortality charges upon the death of insured.

(d) Contract insuring multiple lives on a first-to-die basis.

(e) Examples.

(f) Effective dates.

(1) In general.

(2) Contracts issued before the general effective date.

## § 1.7702-3 Definitions.

(a) In general.

(b) Cash value.

(1) In general.

(2) Amounts excluded from cash value.

(c) Death benefit.

(1) In general.

(2) Qualified accelerated death benefit treated as death benefit.

(d) Qualified accelerated death benefit.

(1) In general.

(2) Determination of present value of the reduction in death benefit.

(3) Examples.

(e) Terminally ill defined.

(f) Certain other additional benefits.

(1) In general.

(2) Examples.

(g) Adjustments under section 7702(f)(7).

(h) Cash surrender value.

(1) In general.

(2) For purposes of section 7702(f)(7).

(i) Net surrender value.

(j) Effective date and special rules.

(1) In general.

(2) Provision of certain benefits before July 1, 1993.

(i) Not treated as cash value.

(ii) No effect on date of issuance.

(iii) Special rule for addition of benefit or loan provision after December 15, 1992.

(3) Addition of qualified accelerated death benefit.

(4) Addition of other additional benefits.

[T.D. 9287, 71 FR 53970, Sept. 13, 2006]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40968 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID SANCHEZ CONSUEGRA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-137-7

-------------------- May 9, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Having pleaded guilty to possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, David Sanchez Consuegra argues on appeal that his plea to the firearms offense should be vacated because the record evidence does not establish his guilt. He further argues thatNo. 01-40968 -2- counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to the firearms charge. In connection with his plea, Consuegra acknowledged that he and eight codefendants robbed a drug dealer of a large quantity of marijuana and that he was aware that three codefendants carried firearms during the robbery. During the course of the robbery, members of the victim’s family were held at gunpoint and the drug dealer was shot. This evidence amply supports Consuegra’s plea of guilty to the firearms violation. See United States v. Harris , 25 F.3d 1275, 1278-79 (5th Cir. 1994). As a clerical matter, we AMEND THE JUDGMENT to reflect that Consuegra pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(a)(A)(i). Although as a general rule we do not address claims of ineffective counsel on direct appeal, the record is adequate for us to do so in this case. As the record establishes that Consuegra is guilty of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, counsel was not ineffective for advising him to enter a plea to that charge. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
# CEDA RCIT Y

1 0 NORT H MAI

N • CEDA RCITY , UTAH 8472 0 435-586-295 0 • FAX : 435-586-436 2 www.cedarcity.or

g Mtivo r Jo e Burges s Counci l Member s Ronal dR . Adam s Nin aR . Barrie s Joh n Blac k Pau l Cozzen s Do n Marchan t

5 Marc h 201 2 Denni s J . DeVany Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U S Department

o f Transportatio n 40 0 Sevent

h Street , S.W . Washingto n DC , 2059 0 _r > 

### 0

C O Dea r Mr . DeVany : Re : Essential Ai r

Servic e i n Ceda

r City , Uta h W e appreciate th e opportunity t o commen t o n th e us e o f

a n alternat e airplan e fo

r th e curren t Essential Ai r

Servic e provider . Th e propose dus e o f Skywes t Regiona l Jet s ha s bee n delaye ddu e t o aFA A ordere dEnvironmental Assessment . Usin g th e EMB-12 0 t o continu e providin g dail y flight schedule s unti l 1 Jun e 201 2 i s acceptabl e t o Ceda r City . Creamer & Noble , th e Airport

Consultan t

i s i n th e final stage s o f

th e Environmental Assessment

an danticipate s th e FA A wil l sig n th e E A an daFinding s o f

N o Significant Impac t (FONSI ) withi n acoupl e weeks . Skywes t wil l the n b e abl e t o submi t a n update d O p Spe c whic h wil l indicat e tha t Ceda r Cit y Regional Airport

i s a"Regular

Scheduled " operatio n for

Regiona l Je t

Service . Skywes t

wil l the n b e abl e t o readjus t th e flight schedul e t o begi n usin g Regional Jet s fo r dail y operations . I f fo r any reaso n adelay pas t

1 Jun e 201 2 i s required . Ceda r City wishe s t o hav e inpu t o n any fiuther

extension s for

th e us e o f

a n alternat e airplane . Sincerely , Jo e Burges s Mayor

Aclniiiiistraiio n 586-295 3 Buildin g Ein dZonin g 865-451 9 Economi c Developmen t 586-277 0 Cit y Enginee r 586-296 3 Park s & Recreatio n 865-922 3 Publi c Work s 586-291 2
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6213-2 Omission of correct vehicle identification number. ( a ) *In general.* The definition of the term *mathematical or clerical error* in section 6213(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) includes: ( 1 ) Under section 6213(g)(2)(T), an omission of a correct vehicle identification number required under section 30D(f)(9) of the Code (relating to credit for new clean vehicles) to be included on a return;
( 2 ) Under section 6213(g)(2)(U), an omission of a correct vehicle identification number required under section 25E(d) of the Code (relating to credit for previously-owned clean vehicles) to be included on a return; and
( 3 ) Under section 6213(g)(2)(V), an omission of a correct vehicle identification number required under section 45W(e) of the Code (relating to credit for qualified commercial clean vehicles) to be included on a return.
( b ) *Omission of a correct vehicle identification number.* For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a taxpayer is treated as having omitted a correct vehicle identification number if: ( 1 ) The vehicle identification number required to be reported under section 30D(f)(9), 25E(d), or 45W(e) is not included on the return of tax;
( 2 ) The vehicle identification number included on the return of tax is not that of a vehicle eligible for a credit under section 30D, 25E, or 45W.
( 3 ) The vehicle identification number included on the return of tax is not that of a vehicle eligible for a credit under section 30D, 25E, or 45W for the year in which it is claimed;
( 4 ) The vehicle identification number included on the return of tax differs from the vehicle identification number reported to the IRS and the taxpayer under section 30D(d)(1)(H) for each new clean vehicle placed in service during the taxable year by the taxpayer who was issued the report; or
( 5 ) The vehicle identification number included on the return of tax differs from the vehicle identification number reported to the IRS and the taxpayer under section 25E(c)(1)(D)(i) for each previously-owned clean vehicle placed in service during the taxable year by the taxpayer who was issued the report.
( c ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
[T.D. 9995, 89 FR 37774, May 6, 2024]
CLAIM OF TITLE THROUGH INNOCENT PURCHASE.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### Phila Hay v. Fredericks Leiser.*

Decided, January, 1915.

*Indefinite Description*— Does *Not Bar a Claim of Title*— Where *the Public Records Afford Notice of Plaintiff’s Rights.*

A claim of title as an innocent purchaser of property at a public sale can not be based on the indefinite description contained in the deeds through which plaintiff asserts his claim, where the public records, plats and indexes pertaining to the parcel in controversy were sufficient to serve as notice of the rights of the plaintiff therein.

*C. B. Matthews*and *Harry T. Klein,*for plaintiff.

*.August H. Bode, Jr.,*and *Mitchell Wilby,*contra.

*

Affirmed by the Supreme Court without opinion, November 9, 1915.

Per Curiam

(Jones [E. IT.], Swing and Jones [Oliver B.], JJ.)

The claim of the defendant in this case is that she bought the property in question at a public sale, and that by reason of indefinite description in the deeds through which plaintiff claimed title she, the defendant, was an innocent purchaser of the property. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims title and asks to have her title quieted.

We have carefully examined the evidence and considered the able briefs and arguments of .counsel, and conclude that the. public records, plats and indexes pertaining to the lot in question were sufficient to serve as notice to Mrs. Leiser of the rights of plaintiff in the lot in controversy. While the original deed for this lot to the trustees of the church did not definitely locate it, the fact that its boundaries were, fixed, probably during the lifetime of John Brooks and certainly during the lifetime of Daniel Brooks, his son, and the church built thereon and occupied as such, and the entire lot fenced, fixed definitely the lines *169of the lot, which, have been ascertainable ever since. Possession thereof is shown by plaintiff and her predecessors in title to such an extent that while the deed to Mrs. Leiser was of the entire tract, including this lot, still, as stated above, there was no reason why the defendant purchaser at the sale should have been misled. We think, moreover, that it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence'that at the time of the auction sale it was announced that the sale was made subject to the reservation of the church lót. A decree will therefore be entered granting the prayer of plaintiff’s petition.