alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 21.1**

 
| **Subsidiary**                                          | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|---------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|
|                                                    |       |                               |
| Aldila Golf Corp.                                       |       | Delaware, U.S.                     |
|                                                    |       |                               |
| Aldila Materials Technology Corp.                       |       | Delaware, U.S.                     |
|                                                    |       |                               |
| Aldila de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                          |       | Mexico                             |
|                                                    |       |                               |
| Aldila Carbon Fibers Products (Zhuhai) Company  Limited |       | People’s Republic of China    |
|                                                    |       |                               |
| Aldila Composite Products Company Limited               |       | Vietnam                            |

 

----
#### JULIUS KOCZAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HAMILTON LAUNDRY SERVICE, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued October 4, 1939

Decided February 13, 1940.

Before Justices Trenchard, Case and Heher.

For the plaintiff-appellee, *William Berger*and *Frank Cohn.*

For the defendant-appellant, *George M. Kagan.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Trenchard, J.

The plaintiff below had a verdict and judgment in the District Court as a result of being bitten by a dog owned and maintained by the defendant upon its premises, while plaintiff was there at defendant’s request.

*53The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside on the ground that it was excessive, and that a new trial be had as to damages only, and reserving exceptions taken at the trial.

That rule to show cause was heard and dismissed.

The record discloses that at the time of the argument of the rule to show cause, defendant’s counsel argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Eow comes the defendant with this appeal and urges as the sole grounds thereof that (1) “the trial court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff, and (2) that the trial court refused to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant.”

But these questions he cannot be heard to argue in view of the disposition of the rule to show cause, the defendant having argued on the hearing on the rule that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, which argument operates as a bar to a consideration of these grounds of appeal.

Such was the definite holding of the Court of Errors and Appeals in *Dietz*v. *Glasgow,*110 *N. J. L.*490, where the court held that by the argument of the weight of evidence on a rule to show cause, counsel, though he reserves exceptions to the refusal of a nonsuit and the direction of a verdict, is precluded from arguing these matters in the appellate court on appeal. See, also, *Jones*v. *U-Drive-It Co.,*8 *N. J. Mis. R.*356; *affirmed,*107 *N. J. L.*523; *Catterall*v. *Otis Elevator Co.,*103 *N. J. L.*381.

In this connection we point out that although the defendant states as a ground of appeal that the trial judge refused to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, as a matter of fact the record submitted to us discloses that no such motion was made; and of course the rule is that the reviewing court on appeal will not consider an alleged error not in any way brought to the attention of the trial judge and not shown to have been raised before him. *Frisby*v. *Thomas Jefferson Council,*74 *N. J. L.*213; *Osborne*v. *Gurtner,*75 *Id.*224.

Eor the reasons indicated this appeal must be dismissed, with costs, and it is so ordered.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22827 Filed:11/04/22 Entered:11/09/22 09:46:52 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22827 Filed:11/04/22 Entered:11/09/22 09:46:52 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14**

**OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Bernard T. Marren, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of OPTi Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on suchevaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this annualreport 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any, fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

June 29, 2006
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 Epolin, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August  31,  2006,
as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned 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 the undersigned's  knowledge,
that:

      (1)   The  Report  fully complies with the requirements  of
Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934;
and

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



Dated:  October 13, 2006           By:  /s/ Greg Amato
                                   Greg Amato,
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:  October 13, 2006           By:  /s/ James Ivchenko
                                   James Ivchenko,
                                   President
                                   (Principal Financial Officer)
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 Adelphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William T. Schleyer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Adelphia, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|Date: | November 4, 2005 |  | /s/WILLIAM T. SCHLEYERWilliam T. Schleyer Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
|----- | ---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### § 617.7520 How does the FCA issue a directive and when will it be effective?

A distressed loan restructuring directive is effective immediately on receipt by the qualified lender, or on such later date as may be specified by FCA, and will remain effective and enforceable until it is stayed, modified, or terminated by FCA.
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and15d-14of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act**

 

I certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aldila,Inc. (the registrant);

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and wehave:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisannual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of Aldila’s board of directors:

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols; and

 

6.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicatedin this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
| Date: March 30, 2004 | /s/ Robert J. Cierzan |   |
|----------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                 |  Robert  J. Cierzan   |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 99.2


                                   AGREEMENT

This agreement is entered into this 15th day of June, 1997 between SAF T LOK
INCORPORATED (hereinafter "Saf T Lok") a Florida corporation with its primary
office located at 18245 SE Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida 33469, and WEST
MARKETING INDUSTRIES (hereinafter "WMI") a Florida corporation with its primary
office located at 1000 West McNab Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069.

WHEREAS, Saf T Lok is in the business of marketing gun locks and is in its
developmental and early marketing stages

WHEREAS WMI is in the business of providing marketing services to mid-size and
growing companies

WHEREAS the parties are desirous of WMI providing services to Saf T Lok and Saf
T Lok receiving those services in a program in which WMI will receive the bulk
of its fees in investment lettered stock

NOW the parties do herefore agree:

1.  WMI shall provide Saf T Lok with all those services outlined in its letter
of June 3rd (See Exhibit 1 and 2).

2.  WMI shall provide additional services to Saf T Lok which in WMI and Saf T
Lok's reasonable judgement are also required to help Saf T Lok achieve its
success, including but not limited to advice and direction on marketing via the
Internet and all forms of development of retail coop and direct response
advertising.

3.  For the purposed of this Agreement, invested letter stock shall be valued at
a 25% discount from the average bid and asked price for the ten days preceding
this agreement.

4.  The cash portion of this agreement shall be payable on the 15th of each
month, divided into 12 payments without interest or carrying charge commencing
June 15th.

5.  Out of pocket expenses shall be billed as incurred.

6.  WMI agrees that it will not represent any competitive companies
manufacturing competitive gun products.

With intent to be legally bound, the parties do herefore affix their ands and
seals

Saf T Lok Incorporated



by: /s/ John L. Gardner
    -------------------
    John G. Gardner, President


West Marketing Industries, Inc.
<PAGE>
 
by: /s/ Steven West
    ---------------
    Steven West, President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10032]


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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region VII Tracking No. MO 098-1098a; FRL-6583-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the Eagle-Picher Technologies' LLC 
Consent Agreement as a revision to the Missouri State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). This Consent Agreement ensures that the operation of the 
newly installed emissions controls at the Chemicals Divisions in 
Joplin, Missouri, are permanent, enforceable, and measurable.
    In the final rules section of the Federal Register, EPA is 
approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision 
amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. 
A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this 
action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. 
If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will 
be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Kim Johnson, Air 
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.
    Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the following 
address for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Johnson, at (913) 551-7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 6, 2000.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 00-10032 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22689 Filed:10/26/22 Entered:10/26/22 10:32:09 Desc: MainDocument Page 1 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22689 Filed:10/26/22 Entered:10/26/22 10:32:09 Desc: MainDocument Page 2 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22689 Filed:10/26/22 Entered:10/26/22 10:32:09 Desc: MainDocument Page 3 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22689 Filed:10/26/22 Entered:10/26/22 10:32:09 Desc: MainDocument Page 4 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22689 Filed:10/26/22 Entered:10/26/22 10:32:09 Desc: MainDocument Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 32.2



ELECTROGLAS, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

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



In connection with the periodic report of Electroglas, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas E. Brunton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes
of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my 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, and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |                          |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: March 24, 2004 |  | /s/    THOMAS E.
BRUNTON
|                     |  |                          |  | Thomas E. BruntonChief Financial Officer
#### W. *W.*Marshal, *Appellant,*v. Hubert F. Krantz and Meta L. Krantz, his wife, *Appellees.*

Decision Filed March 3, 1923.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County; James W. Perkins, Judge.

*Sholtz*& *Green,*for Appellant;

*Landis, Fish & Hull,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen *288and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. . ■

All concur.
#### GREENFIELD TAP & DIE CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES

[68 C. Cls. 61; 281 U. S. 737]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court April 14, 1930.’
§ 617.7600 What are the definitions used in this subpart? In addition to the definitions in § 617.7000, the following definitions apply to this subpart. *Acquired agricultural real estate or property* means agricultural real estate acquired by a System institution as a result of a loan foreclosure or a voluntary conveyance by a borrower who, as determined by the institution, does not have the financial resources to avoid foreclosure.
*Previous owner* means: ( 1 ) The prior record owner who was a borrower from a System institution and did not have the financial resources, as determined by the institution, to avoid foreclosure on acquired agricultural real estate; or
( 2 ) The prior record owner who is not a borrower and whose acquired agricultural real estate was used as collateral for a loan to a System borrower.
*System institution* means a Farm Credit System institution, except a bank for cooperatives, which makes loans as defined in § 617.7000.
#### DU PUY v. UNITED STATES SAME v. SAME

[67 C. Cls. 348; 68 id. 674; Id. 785; 281 U. S. 739]

Petitions for writs of certiorari were *denied*by the Supreme Court April 21, 1930.
§ 703.12 Monitoring securities. ( a ) At least monthly, a Federal credit union must prepare a written report setting forth, for each security held, the fair value and dollar change since the prior month-end, with summary information for the entire portfolio.
( b ) At least quarterly, a Federal credit union must prepare a written report setting forth the sum of the fair values of all fixed and variable rate securities held that have one or more of the following features: ( 1 ) Embedded options;
( 2 ) Remaining maturities greater than 3 years; or
( 3 ) Coupon formulas that are related to more than one index or are inversely related to, or multiples of, an index.
( c ) Where the amount calculated in paragraph (b) of this section is greater than a Federal credit union's net worth, the report described in that paragraph must provide a reasonable and supportable estimate of the potential impact, in percentage and dollar terms, of an immediate and sustained parallel shift in market interest rates of plus and minus 300 basis points on: ( 1 ) The fair value of each security in the Federal credit union's portfolio;
( 2 ) The fair value of the Federal credit union's portfolio as a whole; and
( 3 ) The Federal credit union's net worth.
( d ) If the Federal credit union does not have an investment-related committee, then each member of its board of directors must receive a copy of the reports described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. If the Federal credit union has an investment-related committee, then each member of the committee must receive copies of the reports, and each member of the board of directors must receive a summary of the information in the reports.