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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Ronald
J. Evans, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc.;




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




3. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:




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




(b)
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;




(c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




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




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and 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 are reasonably 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’s internal control over financial
reporting.




/s/ Ronald J. Evans


Ronald J.
Evans


President
and Chief Executive Officer





April 30,
2009
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent G. Townsend,
      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company
              as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
              included in such Report.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------













Date:   August
      6, 2007             
    
                  
 By: /s/
      John B.
      Dicus


John B. Dicus, President and


Chief Executive Officer











Date:   August
      6, 2007          
              
            
By: /s/
      Kent G.
      Townsend


Kent G. Townsend, Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

















<Index>














55
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Federal Reserve Reform Act

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, 1977-1995					 and 	Ninety-Fifth Congress, 1977-1979. 						*Federal Reserve Reform Act : Report (To Accompany H.R. 8094)*,										August 2, 1977,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/380,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-1621

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v. Quentin Jetton lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________ Submitted: December 5, 2012 Filed: December 6, 2012 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Quentin Jetton appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His c ounsel has filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of Jetton’s revocation senten ce and requesting permission to withdraw. This court concludes that the districtcourt committed no abuse of discretion, and that Jetton’s revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Perkins , 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion; district court abuses discretion if sentence imposed is unreasonable); see also United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews revocation sentencing deci sions using same standards as applied to initial sentencing decisions; first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error such as faili ng to consider relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence). The district court sentenced Jetton to a prison term be low the statutory maximum, and gave sound reasons for its sentencing decision. Cf. United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (a lthough defendant received maximum sentence available under statute, district court justified its decision by giving excellent supporting reasons, including its grave concern over de fendant’s numerous and repeated supervised-release violations). This court grants counsel permission to withdraw, and affirms.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-
§ 4002.7 Director of the Corporation and senior officers. ( a ) *Director of the Corporation.* Section 4002(a) and (c) of ERISA establish that the Corporation is administered by a Director. Subject to policies established by the Board, the Director is responsible for the Corporation's management, including its personnel, organization and budget practices, and for carrying out the Corporation's functions under Title IV of ERISA. The Director will timely provide the Board any information necessary to assist the Board in exercising its statutory responsibilities. The Director must submit the Corporation's budget to the Chair of the Board for review and approval before formally submitting the budget to OMB.
( b ) *Senior officers.* The senior officers of the Corporation report directly to the Director. The Director must consult with the Board before eliminating or creating a senior officer position or making an appointment to a senior officer position.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           396466
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2500
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 398966
<PP&E>                                          3154277
<DEPRECIATION>                                    48355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3690394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             51047
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                        1879898
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       876062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3690394
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2599089
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    404113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                20312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2174664
<INCOME-TAX>                                     700181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1474483
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1474483
<EPS-BASIC>                                    235.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    235.64


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 9 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                  S. 9

     To recognize the heritage of the United States as a nation of 
immigrants and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 
   for more effective border and employment enforcement, to prevent 
 illegal immigration, and to reform and rationalize avenues for legal 
                  immigration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. 
Stabenow, and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To recognize the heritage of the United States as a nation of 
immigrants and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 
   for more effective border and employment enforcement, to prevent 
 illegal immigration, and to reform and rationalize avenues for legal 
                  immigration, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that the Senate and the House of 
Representatives should pass, and the President should sign, legislation 
to recognize the heritage of the United States as a nation of 
immigrants and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101 et seq.) to provide for more effective border and employment 
enforcement, to prevent illegal immigration, and to reform and 
rationalize avenues for legal immigration.
                                 <all>
```
[Civ. No. 2236.

First Appellate District.

December 5, 1917.]

#### ARTHUR CRANE, Appellant, v. GUSTAV O. HEINE, Respondent.

Attorney at Law—Unauthorized Use of Name—Action for Damages—Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint.—In an action by an attorney at law for damages to Ms professional reputation, the complaint is sufficient as against a general demurrer under which at least nominal damages are recoverable, where it appears therefrom that the defendant, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff, caused to be sent out and mailed, with plaintiff’s name appended thereto as the sender in typewriting, of over one thousand letters to debtors threatening them with legal proceedings unless they called and settled their accounts.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. E. P. Mogan, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Arthur Crane, *in pro. per.,*for Appellant.

Charles F. Hanlon, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after an order sustaining "a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that it failed to state sufficient facts and after the plaintiff had refused to amend.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff at all the times therein mentioned was an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in all the courts of the state of California, and so engaged, and that he was of excellent standing as a lawyer in California; that in the month of July, 1913, the defendant, without the consent or knowledge of plaintiff, caused to be sent out and mailed, with plaintiff’s name appended thereto as the sender in typewriting, over one thousand letters to defenseless -women and others, which forged letters threatened the recipients thereof with legal proceedings unless within three days they called and settled their respective accounts with the Heine Piano Company. The complaint further alleges that as a result of this 'unauthorized conduct of the defendant the plaintiff’s professional reputation and stand*467ing as a lawyer was seriously impaired, and that he was damaged in the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, for which sum he demanded judgment.

The complaint contains much immaterial matter, and it would certainly he obnoxious to a special demurrer, but as against a general- demurrer we think was good; for, assuming —as we must on demurrer—that the allegations of the complaint are true, we learn that the defendant, without the plaintiff’s permission, used his name and his alleged well-known standing as an attorney at law to endeavor to effect collections of over one thousand tardy accounts. This, if true, was certainly a transgression or invasion of the plain.tiff’s rights, from which the law will at least presume nominal damages, which may be recovered. (Civ. Code, sec. 3360; *Western Union Tel. Co.*v. *Ferguson,*157 Ind. 64, 66, [54 L. R. A. 846, 60 N. E. 674] ; 1 Cooley on Torts, 39, 84, 93; *Hearne*v. *De Young,*132 Cal. 357, [64 Pac. *576].*

The judgment is reversed.
J. A27013/14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE CO. :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. :

:

LISA JEAN NELSON SHAWARBY AND 

RASHA KHEDR SHAWARBY 

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: RASHA KHEDR 

SHAWARBY, 

:

: No. 1973 WDA 2013 

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Order November 20, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County 

Civil Division at No. 2013-2999 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN AND MUSMANNO, JJ. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

 This case is related to another case docketed at No. 1972 WDA 2013, 

captioned “Rasha Khedr Shawarby v. Amr Omar Shawarby and the Estate of 

Amr Omar Shawarby, a/k/a AO Shawarby, deceased.” Our review reveals 

appellant, Rasha Khedr Shawarby, filed a motion for consolidation of the two 

cases at docket Nos. 1972 and 1973 WDA 2013. Appellant’s motion was 

denied on March 26, 2014 by per curiam order. 

 Instantly, we have received duplicate copies of the briefs and 

reproduced record filed at Docket No. 1972 WDA 2013 from appellant and 

appellee, Amr Omar Shawarby and the Estate of Amr Omar Shawarby, a/k/a 

AO Shawarby, deceased. State Farm Life Insurance Company has not filed a 
J. A27013/14 

- 2 - 

brief. However, our review of a hearing transcript dated September 27, 

2013, indicates State Farm Insurance Company was dismissed from the 

case. 

[Judge Fleming]: I’ll note for the record that 

Jennifer Miller was present for State Farm Insurance 

Company in chambers, and she was basically 

dismissed upon agreement that State Farm has two 

life insurance policies on behalf of Dr. Shawarby, 

that all of the parties agree will be paid into the court 

with interest from the date of demise, and then the

Prothonotary is going to be directed to hold those 

monies in an interest bearing account because of the 

amount of the funds. So because Attorney Miller 

was then not involved in subsequent discussions, we

agreed that she didn’t need to be here for the 

remaining proceedings and we assured her that we 

would not obligate State Farm any further than that. 

Notes of testimony, 9/27/13 at 3-4. 

 Because the issues raised in this appeal are the exact issues addressed 

in the companion case and have been decided by our Memorandum decision 

in that matter, we dismiss this duplicative appeal.

 Appeal dismissed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 2/25/2015
(77 South. 1002)

#### CARTER v. STATE.

(6 Div. 360.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 18, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H. B. Foster, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
(77 South. 241)

#### BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN R. CO. v. GUEST.

(6 Div. 282.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 27, 1917.)

Trial <&wkey;252(ll) — Injuries to Servant — Submission of Question of Contributory Negligence.

In a railroad servant’s action for injuries, in the absence of all evidence tending to prove plaintiff was negligent, the court properly refused to submit to the jury the question of contributory negligence, as requested by the railroad.

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. W. Ferguson, Judge.

Action by ,J. H. Guest against the Birmingham Southern Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Percy, Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant. Harsh, I-Iarsh *&*Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J.

The cause was tried on four counts, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5, to which were interposed pleas of general issue and contributory negligence. The only assignments of error are to the court’s refusal to give, at the request of the 'defendant, the general charge, separately as to each count, and in failing to give a charge submitting to the jury the question of contributory negligence on the x>art of plaintiff.

The first count attributes plaintiff’s injuries to the negligence of James Gould, an alleged superintendent. The second, to a defect in the works, ways, machinery, or plant, etc., in that the ground floor was defective. The third, to negligence in failing to furnish a reasonably safe place in which to work. The fifth, to the negligence of Harris, the superintendent. It is not questioned that each *253count of the complaint above mentioned states a good cause of action, and we find that There was sufficient evidence upon which to submit each of them to the jury. John v. Birmingham Realty Co., 172 Ala. 603, 55 South. 801; Tobler v. Pioneer Mining Co., 166 Ala. 482-516, 52 South. 86.

There was absolutely no evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was negligent. So far as appears, he was going about his work in a careful maimer, undertaking to prop a car as was usually done in similar cases, by those engaged in car repairing for defendant, with no reason to believe that the floor of the shop was other than it had been at other points where occasion had demanded the driving of iron bolts to secure props to cars. Therefore the court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the question of contributory negligence, as requested by the defendant.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operation of the
Company.

Date:    March 15, 2006                By:     /s/ David L. Norris
                                               --------------------------------
                                       Name:   David L. Norris
                                       Title:  President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1-1