alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy V. Bechtold,certify that:

1.                     Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RiverSource Life InsuranceCompany;

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

3.                     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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 (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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**: **August 7, 2007
|        | /s/ Timothy V. Bechtold |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy V. Bechtold     |
|   | President               |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

THE COAST
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for
the Quarter ended June 30, 2008

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    SANDRA A. KNELL                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Sandra A. Knell Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                       
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 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.
KYRGYZSTAN ASPIRES TO WELCOME MORE VISITORS

----

**May 1999**
by Ellen S. House
As the world discovers Kyrgyzstan, dubbed the Switzerland of Central Asia, the country isbetting that its natural beauty and friendly atmosphere will attract increasing numbers of visitors.Despite the distinction of having become the first (and only) NIS country to accede to the WorldTrade Organization (WTO), Kyrgyzstan is struggling to survive and prosper amid the variousworld financial crises and intense competition for global resources. Promotion of tourism is seenas way to attract attention, investment, and goodwill toward this remote, relatively unknowncountry. A new government focus on the privatization and   improvement of tourisminfrastructure aims to bring in foreign investment and attract travelers to Kyrgyzstan's dramaticmountains, lakes and rivers, and Silk Road routes.  
Kyrgyzstan's pristine natural beauty including steppes, mountains, desert, glaciers, rivervalleys, lakes, and forests offers spectacularly varied terrain. Opportunities for adventure andsport run the gamut from mountaineering, mountain biking, and heli-skiing to spelunking,whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and birding. The country boasts two major mountainranges, the Tien Shan and Ala-Too, and some of the highest peaks in the world Pik Pobeda(7,439 m), Lenin Peak (7,134 m), and the legendary white-and-pink marble pyramid of KhanTengry (6,995 m). Issyk-Kul in the northeast is the world's second largest alpine lake (afterSouth America's Lake Titicaca). Its shores offer sanatoria, spas, and resorts, which werefrequented by the elite in Soviet times. 
The resurgence of interest in the old Silk Road trading route, three branches of which passedthrough Kyrgyzstan linking China with various parts of Central Asia, attracts travelers seekingculture and history. Osh, a stop along the Silk Road route, offers "Suleiman's Mountain," one ofthe oldest places of worship in Central Asia, along with a stunning bazaar that sells everythingfrom Turkish leather jackets to traditional horse quirts and bridles. A blink of the eyes and thevisitor is transported back to an earlier century.  
**U.S. Tourists Discover Krygyzstan**
#### Moses Edward SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. MM-157.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 7, 1979.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The references to the “three-year minimum” in the commitment to custody papers for the convictions of aggravated battery and robbery are stricken. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment and sentence for each conviction.

MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 19, 2022

No. 04-21-00212-CV

Earl HARPER,

Appellant

v.

CREDITO REAL BUSINESS CAPITAL,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI23243

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On August 18, 2022, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. After consideration, we 

deny appellant’s motion. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Quarterly Report of Auto Underwriters of America, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Dean Antonis, as Principal Executive Officer of 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, to the best of his knowledge,
that:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/
      Dean AntonisDean
      AntonisPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer)Date: May
      16, 2008








This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
| ·   | 2,000,000 shares shall be designated Series A-1 Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Series A-1 Preferred Stock”). |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | By: | _/s/ Guido DiGregorio       |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Name: | Guido DiGregorio |
|--------|-------|------------------|

|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.342 Continuous eligibility for children. ( a ) A State may provide continuous eligibility for children under a separate CHIP in accordance with the terms of § 435.926 of this chapter, and subject to a child remaining ineligible for Medicaid, as required by section 2110(b)(1) of the Act and § 457.310 (related to the definition and standards for being a targeted low-income child) and the requirements of section 2102(b)(3) of the Act and § 457.350 (related to eligibility screening and enrollment).
( b ) In addition to the reasons provided at § 435.926(d) of this chapter, a child may be terminated during the continuous eligibility period for failure to pay required premiums or enrollment fees required under the State plan, subject to the disenrollment protections afforded under section 2103(e)(3)(C) of the Act (related to premium grace periods) and § 457.570 (related to disenrollment protections).
[81 FR 86464, Nov. 30, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,309,760
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,611,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                   185,000
<INVENTORY>                                    187,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,981,333
<PP&E>                                      14,394,625
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,056,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,556,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,106,964
<BONDS>                                      9,780,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,485
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,247,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,556,468
<SALES>                                        548,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,470,889
<CGS>                                          415,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  415,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             264,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            107,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,389
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3481 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3481

To repeal the minimum wage requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
                    of 1938, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 1996

Mr. Lightfoot (for himself, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
   Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Herger, Mr. Istook, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. 
 Manzullo, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Hancock, 
Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Crane, Mr. 
  Chrysler, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Taylor of North 
   Carolina, Mr. Mica, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Packard, and Mr. 
   Stearns) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the minimum wage requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
                    of 1938, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Sections 5 and 8 and section 6 (other than subsection (d) of such 
section) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 205, 206, 
208) are repealed.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL REGULATION.

    The Federal Government may not take any action to regulate or 
otherwise impede actions taken by the States or political subdivisions 
of States to enact or implement minimum wage laws.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARY LYNN WALLACE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-92-278, CA-96-395-1)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 19, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Franklin Loflin, III, LOFLIN & LOFLIN, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Wallace, Nos. CR-92-278; CA-96-395-1 (M.D.N.C.

Dec. 10, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jeffrey H. Buchalter, Chairman, President and 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 to the best of my
knowledge:

     (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.

                                                By: /s/Jeffrey H. Buchalter
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Jeffrey H. Buchalter
                                                   Chairman, President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)

September 27, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Richard A. KATZ, Appellant, v. PREFERRED EQUITIES CORPORATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 81-477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1981.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tu-tan, O’Hara & McCoy and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Colson & Hicks, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Katz appeals from a default entered against him as a result of failing to make discovery. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 provides for an order of the court prior to imposing the ultimate sanction of default. *Rashard v. Cappiali,*171 So.2d 581 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); *Santuoso v. McGrath and Associates, Inc.,*385 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded.
#### Jonathan BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-833.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 27, 1974.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Kenneth J. Scherer, Asst. Public Defender, and B. Douglas Hindmarsh, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

Defendant was placed upon probation following a criminal offense. His probation was subsequently revoked. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

The probation condition involved was, “In all respects live honorably, work diligently at a lawful occupation, and support dependents, if any, to the best of defendant’s ability, and live within what income is available.”

The violation charged, which lead to revocation, was failing to “live honorably” for the second time, to-wit: unlawfully breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit petit larceny.

Two appellate points are presented:

> 1. Whether requiring a probationer to “in all respects live honorably” is an *310unconstitutionally vague condition of probation ?

We decline to assay its merit. Section 924.06(2), F.S.1973, Appeal by defendant, provides:

> “924.06 Appeal by defendant.—

> ******

> “(2) An appeal of an order granting probation shall proceed in the same manner and have the same effect as an appeal of a judgment of conviction. An appeal of an order revoking probation may review only proceedings *after*the order of probation. . . *. ”*(Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the above statute clearly limits this appeal to review of proceedings that occurred *after*the entry of the order of probation. Probation is a matter of grace and when the defendant chose to accept the conditions of his probation he can not now, having violated those conditions, challenge the order. If he had any grievance, he could have either refused probation or appealed the order and its contents. Section 924.06(2) F.S.1973; Hardrick v. State, 293 So.2d 135 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1974).

The second appellate point is :

> II. Whether a revocation of probation based solely on hearsay should be vacated ?

We have examined the record and, while there is hearsay evidence reflected, there is additional direct, competent evidence sufficient to substantiate the appealed order. For instance, an officer testified that he arrested the defendant at the scene of the burglary and received oral and written consent to search defendant’s car. The officer did so and found two watches hidden therein, identified as the burglary loot. The watches were admitted into evidence. *See*White v. State, 301 So.2d 464 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); Crossin v. State, 244 So.2d 142 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1971); Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1969); McNeely v. State, 186 So.2d 520 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1966).

We find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J, and MAGER, J., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

s0222 

# Order

February 26, 2010

140126

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140126 COA: 293761 Kent CC: 08-006638-FH MARK EDWARD DELMONT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of W.J.S., a child, * From the 266 th District Court

of Erath County

Trial Court No. CV34914.

No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 233

- C V * February 28, 2019

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C. J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.