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

I, Richard Rubin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of American BiogeneticSciences, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: May 23, 2011

/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
# Three Phase TEFC Motors

3 2 www.aosmithmotors.com 1⁄4 1800 208-230/460 1.4-1.5/.75 48 H201 B 7.78 2,4,5 1200 200-230/460 1.3-1.2/0.6 56 H205 B 10.07 5
1⁄3 3600 200-230/460 1.3-1.4/0.7 56 H238 B 9.82 5 1800 208-230/460 1.2-1.2/0.6 48 H261 B 8.72 2,4,5

200-230/460 1.3-1.2/0.6 56 H263 B 10.07 4,5 200-230/460 1.2-1.2/0.6 56 H688 B 10.99 1200 200-230/460 1.8-1.6/0.8 56 H268 B 11.07 5
1⁄2 3600 200-230/460 1.9-1.8/0.9 56 H271 B 9.82 5 1800 200-230/460 1.6-1.8/0.9 56 H274 B 11.07 5

208-230/460 1.6-1.8/0.9 56 H868 B 10.99 575 0.7 56 H276 B 11.07 5 1200 200-230/460 2.1-2.0/1.0 56 H280 B 11.07 5

575 .70 56 H249 B 11.07 3⁄4 3600 200-230/460 2.5-2.4/1.2 56 H448 B 11.07 5 1800 200-230/460 2.3-2.4/1.2 56 H580 B 14.44 5

200-230/460 2.4-2.4/1.2 56 H869 B 10.99 575 0.8 56 H461 B 12.19 5 1200 200-230/460 3.2-3.2/1.6 56 H468 B 12.24

200-230/460 3.2-3.2/1.6 143T N142 B 13.23 1 1 3600 200-230/460 3.2-3.0/1.5 56 H505 B 12.24 575 1.15 56 H517 B 11.24 1800 200 3.1 143T E123 ✪ B E+ 13.23 82.5

200-208 3.7-3.5 143T E194 ✪ F E+ 13.20 82.5 3 200-208 3.5-3.3 143T E130 ✪ F E+3 13.20 84.5 1,3 200-230/460 3.3-3.4/1.7 56 H524 B 11.24 208-230/460 4.0-3.2/1.6 143T E164 ✪ F E+ 13.20 82.5 3 208-230/460 4.0-3.0/1.5 143T E131✪ F E+3 13.20 84.5 3 200-230/460 4.49-2.7/1.35 143T E120 ✪ B E+ 13.23 84.0 575 1.4 56 H525 ✪ B 11.24 575 1.08 143T E126 ✪ B E+ 13.23 82.5 575 1.3 143T E167 ✪ F E+ 13.20 82.5 3 575 1.2 143T E132 ✪ F E+3 13.20 84.5 3 1200 200-230/460 4.2-3.8/1.9 56H H528 B 13.36

200-230/460 4.0-3.8/1.9 145T E1021 ✪ B E+ 13.27 82.5 208-230/460 5.0-3.6/1.8 145T E160✪ F E+ 13.20 80.0 3 575 1.4 145T E193 ✪ F E+ 13.20 80.0 3

Full Load Stock Insul. Cast "C" HP RPM Volts Amps Frame Number Alternate Class Iron Type Dim. Efficiency Notes E120

Continued on next page 

# Squirrel Cage • Totally Enclosed • Standard, EPActCC001A ( E - P l u s ® ) and Premium (E-Plus®3) Efficiency • Rigid Base • 3600, 1800 and 1200 RPM
• 1⁄ 4

# thru 400 HP

Features: Ball Bearings • 60 Hz • 40°C Ambient • Class B or F Insulated • 1.15 Service Factor 56 Frame and larger • Continuous Duty • NEMADesign B • E-Plus Motors meet the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. E-Plus 3 motors exceed the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 Applications: Pumps, fans, compressors, conveyors, machine tools, designed to stand up to abusive treatment....moist, dirty, dusty and factory applications.

Notes: 1. Item to be discontinued when present stock is depleted 2. 1.0 Service Factor 3. C & D flange and blower kit adaptable, TEFC 4. 60/50 Hertz 5. Totally enclosed non-ventilated Published efficiency on tri-voltage rated motors applies at 230/460 volts. Performance at 200 or 208 volts may not be in accordance with NEMAstandards. Published efficiency on 200-208 volt motors applies at 200 volts. Motors specially designed, tested and warranted to be Corona-Freefor compatible inverter duty are marked on this page with a ✪. See page 4 and 5 of this catalog for more Speed Engineered®information.
§ 54.6071-1 Time for filing returns. ( a ) *Returns under section 4980B.* ( 1 ) *Due date for filing of return by employers or other persons responsible for benefits under a group health plan.* If the person liable for the excise tax is an employer or other person responsible for providing or administering benefits under a group health plan (such as an insurer or a third party administrator), the return required by § 54.6011-2 must be filed on or before the due date for filing the person's income tax return and must reflect the portion of the noncompliance period for each failure under section 4980B that falls during the person's taxable year. An extension to file the person's income tax return does not extend the date for filing Form 8928.
( 2 ) *Due date for filing of return by multiemployer plans.* If the person liable for the excise tax is a multiemployer plan, the return required by § 54.6011-2 must be filed on or before the last day of the seventh month following the end of the plan's plan year. The filing of Form 8928 by a plan must reflect the portion of the noncompliance period for each failure under section 4980B that falls during the plan's plan year.
( b ) *Returns under section 4980D.* ( 1 ) *Due date for filing of return by employers.* If the person liable for the excise tax is an employer, the return required by § 54.6011-2 must be filed on or before the due date for filing the employer's income tax return and must reflect the portion of the noncompliance period for each failure under chapter 100 that falls during the employer's taxable year. An extension to file the employer's income tax return does not extend the date for filing Form 8928.
( 2 ) *Due date for filing of return by multiemployer plans or multiple employer health plans.* If the person liable for the excise tax is a multiemployer plan or a specified multiple employer health plan, the return required by § 54.6011-2 must be filed on or before the last day of the seventh month following the end of the plan's plan year. The filing of Form 8928 by a plan must reflect the portion of the noncompliance period for each failure under chapter 100 that falls during the plan's plan year.
( c ) *Returns under section 4980E.* Any employer who is liable for the excise tax under section 4980E must report this tax by filing the return required by § 54.6011-2 on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the calendar year in which the noncomparable contributions were made.
( d ) *Returns under section 4980G.* Any employer who is liable for the excise tax under section 4980E must report this tax by filing the return required by § 54.6011-2 on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the calendar year in which the noncomparable contributions were made. *See* Q & A-4 of § 54.4980G-1 for the rules on computation of the excise tax under section 4980G.
( e ) *Effective/applicability date:* The rules in this section are effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010.
[T.D. 9457, 74 FR 46000, Sept. 8, 2009]
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

AFM change 1.0 $ 85.00 0 $ 85.00 284 $24,140.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $24,140

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $24,140

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2415

Lower Tribunal No. 22-CF-11393

_____________________________

DEMARIO LEON GREENE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Kevin B. Weiss, Judge.

March 15, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181, 1188 (Fla. 2009).

NARDELLA, WOZNIAK and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jeri Delgado, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marissa V. Giles, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
§ 19.745 How is fact-finding conducted? ( a ) If fact-finding is conducted— ( 1 ) You may present witnesses and other evidence, and confront any witness presented; and
( 2 ) The fact-finder must prepare written findings of fact for the record.
( b ) A transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings must be made, unless you as a respondent and the Department of the Treasury agree to waive it in advance. If you want a copy of the transcribed record, you may purchase it.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard Rubin

CEO, CFO and ChairmanDated: March 1, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Brandon Holmes, Respondent, v Curtis Drown, as Hearing Officer, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 823]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 13, 2004 in Clinton County, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in *794Clinton County, was charged with assaulting another inmate, engaging in violent conduct and possession of a weapon. At a tier III disciplinary hearing where respondent was presiding, petitioner was expelled from the hearing because he repeatedly interrupted, refused to obey instructions and made requests that respondent found to be deliberately designed to harass and frustrate the hearing process. Petitioner was found guilty of all charges and a penalty of 18 months in the special housing unit, with a corresponding loss of package, commissary and phone privileges, was imposed. The disposition was affirmed on administrative appeal and petitioner’s request for reconsideration was denied. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt, petitioner alleges that he was improperly excluded from the hearing and denied his right to respond to the charges. Supreme Court agreed, respondent appeals and we affirm.

An inmate has a fundamental right to be present at a Superintendent’s hearing “unless he or she refuses to attend, or is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” (7 NYCRR 254.6 [a] [2]; *see Matter of Alexander v Ricks,*8 AD3d 942, 944 [2004]; *Matter of Berrian v Selsky,*306 AD2d 771, 772 [2003], *appeal dismissed*100 NY2d 631 [2003], *cert denied*543 US 841 [2004]). When an inmate is denied his right to be present, the record must contain the basis underlying a hearing officer’s determination *(see Matter of Garcia v LeFevre,*64 NY2d 1001, 1003 [1985]; *Matter of Boodro v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 820, 821-822 [1988]). Here, there was no indication that petitioner posed a threat to institutional safety or correctional goals. The record, instead, demonstrates that petitioner slowed the hearing process by asking questions about information that he thought could vindicate him. At no time, however, did petitioner’s behavior rise to the level of disruption that would have necessitated his removal *(see Matter of Alexander v Ricks, supra*at 943; *Matter of Berrian v Selsky, supra*at 772; *but see Matter of Beckles v Selsky,*273 AD2d 584 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 764 [2000]; *Matter of Dumpson v McGinnis,*247 AD2d 804 [1998]; *Matter of Joyce v Goord,*246 AD2d 926 [1998]; *Matter of Jones v Selsky,*223 AD2d 990 [1996]; *Matter of Garcia v Coughlin,*194 AD2d 896 [1993]).

Although this determination obviates our need to review the procedural errors raised by petitioner, we note that had we reviewed them, we would have found them to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### § 1024.500 General.

Mutual funds are subject to the special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Mutual funds should also refer to subpart E of part 1010 of this chapter for special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity contained in that subpart which apply to mutual funds.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1052

To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the reformulated gasoline provisions

and the provisions relating to work-related vehicle trip reduction, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

Mr. NEUMANN (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. PETRI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the reformulated

gasoline provisions and the provisions relating to workrelated vehicle trip reduction, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN CLEAN AIR PROVISIONS.

4 (a) REFORMULATED GASOLINE.—Section 211(k) of

5 the Clean Air Act (relating to reformulated gasoline) is

6 hereby repealed.

7 (b) EMPLOYEE TRIP REDUCTION.—Section

8 182(d)(1)(B) of such Act is repealed and section
2

•HR 1052 IH

1 108(f)(1)(A) of such Act is amended by striking clause

2 (iii).

Æ
# United States Court of Appeals

F o r t h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t

C h i c a g o

, I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 4

Submitted May 16, 2008 ∗ 

### Decided May 22, 2008

AMENDED June 10, 2008



## B e f o r e

F R A N K 

### H. E A S T E R B R O O K



### , Chief Judge

I L A N A 

### D I A M O N D 

### R O V N E R



### , Circuit Judge

D I A N E 

### P. W O O D



### , Circuit Judge



## N o

. 07

- 3985

U N I T E D 

### S T A T E S O F 

### A M E R I C A



### , Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

K E I T H 

### A. H A L L I B U R T O N



### , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Central District of Illinois

.

No. 98 CR 20042 Michael P. McCuskey

, Chief Jud ge

.

Order

Approximately eight years after we affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Keith Halliburton filed in the district court a motion asking the judge to compel the United States Attorney to file a motion for sentence reduction und er Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The district judge denied this motion summarily, and Halliburton has

∗ T h i s s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l h a s b e e n s u b m i t t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l p a n e l u n d e r O p e r a t i n g P r o c e d u r e 6 ( b )

. A f t e r

e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d t h e r e c o r d

, w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t o r a l a r g u m e n t i s u n n e c e s s a r y

. S e e F e d

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 4 ( a ) ; C i r

. R

. 3 4 ( f )

. N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P O S I T I O N

T o b e c i t e d o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h

F e d

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 2

. 1

### No. 07

- 3985 Page 2

appealed.

T he motion is untimely. Rule 35(b)(1) allows the United States to propose a lower sentence only within the first year after a sentence has been impos ed. There is an exception, see Rule 35(b)(2), for information that the defendant did not learn (or whose value could not be assessed) until the year had passed. Halliburton does not contend that his situation fits this exception. Instead he maintains that the United States promised to file a motion and did not carry through. Any shortcoming on that subject could have been raised long ago.

What is more, Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181 (1992) , holds that a district court

do es not have au thority to upset the prosecutor’ s decision not to file a Rule 35(b) motion unless the defendant first makes a prima facie showing that the prosecutor acted for an

unconstitutional reason. See also In re United States , 503 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2007).

Halliburton has not trie d to show this. Instead he believes that the prosecutor must provide the district judge with a good reason not to file a motion. That contention is incompatible with Wade

.

A F F I R M E D
#### § 1025.400 General.

Insurance companies are subject to the recordkeeping requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Insurance companies should also refer to subpart D of part 1010 of this chapter for recordkeeping requirements contained in that subpart which apply to insurance companies.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tofeek Albanna, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 169]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered January 28, 2004. The judgment *1005convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of assault in the first degree and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and a new trial is granted on count one of the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions concerning the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In addition, contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in denying his request to charge assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]) as a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree *(see People v Walker,*306 AD2d 56, 57 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 600 [2003]; *People v Mahoney,*122 AD2d 815, 816 [1986], *lv denied*68 NY2d 1002 [1986]; *cf. People v Porter,*69 AD2d 1007 [1979]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must *(see People v Martin,*59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant intended to cause “physical injury” to the victim (§ 120.05 [2]), but not “serious physical injury” (§ 120.10 [1]), and thus the court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the lesser included offense *(see People v Edwards,*16 AD3d 226, 227 [2005]; *Walker,*306 AD2d at 57; *People v Richardson,*215 AD2d 222 [1995]; *cf. People v Tatta,*177 AD2d 674 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 923 [1992]). We therefore modify the judgment by reversing that part convicting defendant of assault in the first degree, and we grant a new trial on count one of the indictment. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.