alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1228.10 When do loans of permanent and unscheduled records require NARA approval?

Loans of permanent or unscheduled records between Federal agencies or to non-Federal recipients require prior written approval from NARA. The loan of permanent or unscheduled records increases the likelihood of the records becoming lost, misplaced, or incorporated into other files. Agencies should consider reproducing or scanning the records in response to a loan request.
******EXHIBIT 12.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Chris I. Roberts, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to theannual report on Form 20-F of Amcor Limited;

 

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

 

3.               The company’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for thecompany and have:

 

(a)                                  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b)                                 Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                                  Disclosed in this report any change in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

4.     The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and audit committee of the company’s board of directors:

 

(a)                                  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)                                 Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: June 6, 2005

 
|   |   /s/  Chris I. Roberts      |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   Name:  Chris I. Roberts    |
|   |   Title:  Executive Chairman |

 

----
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-10916 

MAXUS ENERGY CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:92-CV-1655-X)

August 8, 1996

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) case, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.,

Plaintiff/Appellant Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) seeks to
recover response costs and obtain contribution from the United

States for expenses incurred by Maxus in the clean-up of a

hazardous waste site. 

Section § 9613(f)(1) of CERCLA states that “[a]ny person may

seek contribution from any other person who is liable or

potentially liable under § 9607(a) of this title....” 42 U.S.C. §

9613(f)(1). Section 9607(a) provides that, to establish a prima

facie case of liability, a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that

the defendant is a “responsible party” under CERCLA. Joslyn Mfg.

Co. v. Koppers Co., 40 F.3d 750, 760 (5th Cir. 1994). “To be

liable as a responsible party under CERCLA, [a party] must fall

into one of the categories set out in ... 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).”

Id. Section 9607(a) imposes liability upon four categories of

responsible people:

(1) the owner and operator of a ... facility,

(2) any person who at the time of disposal of

any hazardous substance owned or operated any

facility at which such hazardous substances

were disposed of, 

(3) any person who by contract, agreement, or

otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment,

or arranged with a transporter for transport

for disposal or treatment, of hazardous

substances owned or possessed by such person,

by any other party or entity, at any facility

or incineration vessel owned or operated by

another party or entity and containing such

hazardous substances, and

(4) any person who accepts or accepted any

hazardous substances for transport to disposal

or treatment facilities, incineration vessels

or sites selected by such person, from which

there is a release, or a threatened release
3

which causes the incurrence of response

costs....

42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(emphasis added). 
g:\95-10916.opn 4

Maxus argues that the United States is liable as both an “operator”

under § 9607(a)(1), and as an “arranger” under § 9607(a)(3).

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,

the reply brief, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion

and Order filed September 1, 1995, which granted the motion for a

summary judgment of defendant, United States, the final judgment

entered by the district court on September 1, 1995, is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

MIT Holding, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)

Section 302 Certification

 

I, Walter H. C. Drakeford, the Chief FinancialOfficer of MIT Holding, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-K of MIT Holding, 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 statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, the results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the issuer and have:

 

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

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The issuer’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a) all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

Date: April 15, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
     6-30-97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                        5,349
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                12,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                    260
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             19,055
<PP&E>                                       29,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               23,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               51,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        10,477
<BONDS>                                       3,487
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         45
<OTHER-SE>                                   33,999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 51,723
<SALES>                                      62,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             62,723
<CGS>                                        37,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                37,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             21,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               3,654
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,413
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2,241
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .50
        


</TABLE>
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

 ) 

 ) 

Mike Braun for Indiana and Thomas Datwyler ) MUR 8107 

 in his official capacity as treasurer ) 

 ) 

 

THIRD CONSENT TO EXTEND THE TIME TO COMMENCE A 

CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING 

In order to provide for a possible resolution of this matter through pre-probable cause 

conciliation, Respondent, Mike Braun for Indiana and Thomas Datwyler in his official capacity 

as treasurer, hereby consents to toll the statute of limitations for any civil enforcement action, 

suit, or proceeding that the Federal Election Commission might institute in connection with 

MUR 8107 pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a) for an additional period of sixty (60) days. 

 This agreement will extend the time to institute a civil law enforcement suit for an 

additional period of sixty (60) calendar days from the expiration date of the five-year statute of 

limitations found at 28 U.S.C. § 2462, or any other statute of limitations or repose that may be 

applicable in these matters. 

 There shall be no additional consent to extend the time to instate a civil law enforcement 

suit without the written consent of the Respondent. 

Dated: November 14, 2023 

__________________________

Counsel for Respondent 

MUR810700099
§ 222.6 Compensation for permittees' interest in authorized permanent improvements. ( a ) Whenever a term permit for grazing livestock on National Forest land in the 16 contiguous western States is canceled in whole or in part to devote the lands covered by the permit to another public purpose, including disposal, the permittee shall receive from the United States a reasonable compensation for the adjusted value of his interest in authorized permanent improvements placed or constructed by him on the lands covered by the canceled permit. The adjusted value is to be determined by the Chief, Forest Service. Compensation received shall not exceed the fair market value of the terminated portion of the permittee's interest therein.
( b ) In the event a permittee waives his grazing permit in connection with sale of his base property or permitted livestock, he is not entitled to compensation.
(Sec. 1, 30 Stat. 35, as amended (16 U.S.C. 551); sec. 1, 33 Stat. 628 (16 U.S.C. 472); sec. 32, 50 Stat. 525, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1011); sec. 19, 64 Stat. 88 (16 U.S.C. 5801); Title IV, Pub. L. 94, 90 Stat. 2771 (43 U.S.C. 1751, *et seq.*); 92 Stat. 1803 (43 U.S.C. 1901))
[42 FR 56732, Oct. 28, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 61345, Oct. 25, 1979]
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 Annual Report of Spicy Pickle Franchising, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc Geman, Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Marc Geman


Marc Geman


Chief Executive Officer





March 12, 2010
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 -75.0

 37.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ● ● ●
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

E.S. , the Mother

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
, and

the GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 2183

[ November 1, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; J. David Langford , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312015DP000060

.

Crystal J. Marsh of Marsh Law Firm, P.A., Port Saint Lucie, for appellant.

Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Kelley Schaeffer, Bradenton, for appellee Department of Children and

Families.

P ER C URIAM

.

In a fifty

- five page final judgment terminating the parental rights of the mother to her son, the trial court reviewed the extensive evidence of medical neglect and the mother’s breach of her case plan. The mother primarily argues on appeal that competent

, substantial e vidence does not support the trial court’s detailed findings, nor is the evidence clear and convincing. We affirm.

On review, the task of the appellate court:

is not to conduct a de novo proceeding, reweigh the testimony and evidence given at the trial court, or substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. Instead, we will uphold the trial court's finding “[i]f, upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there is any theory or principle of law2 which would support the trial court's judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.”

In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W. , 658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla. 1995) (quoting Kingsley v. Kingsley

, 623 So. 2d 780, 787 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1993))

. T his record is replete with evidence to support th e findings o f the trial court.

Appellant’s challenges to the expert witnesses on the extent of the records they reviewed to support their opinions were not preserved. In any event, this would go to the weight of their testimony, not to its admissibility

. See Nat Ha rrison Associates, Inc. v. Byrd, 256 So. 2d 50, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)

. As to her claim that non

- experts were allowed to give speculative expert opinions, these issues were also not preserved, nor does the record support appellant’s claim that the witnesses were not sufficiently qualified to offer their opinions

.

The court found, and the record supports: the grounds for termination; that termination was the least restrictive means to prevent further harm to the child; and that it is manifestly in the child’s best interest that the mother’s rights be terminated. We commend t he trial court for its thorough, well

- reasoned final judgment, which we affirm.

W ARNER
, G ROSS and T AYLOR

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 13.1

SECTION 906 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2006 of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Anders C. Moberg, President, Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Corporate Executive Board of the Company, certify, that, to my knowledge:

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

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

Date: June 29, 2007



By:

/s/ Anders C. MobergName: Anders C. Moberg Title: President, Chief
Executive Officer and Member of the Corporate Executive Board


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ace Marketing & Promotions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dean L.
Julia, 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, 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.


                                                      /S/ DEAN L. JULIA
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      DEAN L. JULIA
                                                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                      MAY 15, 2006
**EXHIBIT** **23.2**
 
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
  We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        333-35884, 333-87977 and 333-66297 on Form S-3 and numbers 333-89989,
        333-94125, 33-72108, 333-97525, 333-110946 and 333-128628 on Form S-8
        of
        Precision Optics Corporation, Inc. of our report dated August 12, 2005, relating
        to the consolidated financial statements of Precision Optics Corporation,
        Inc.
        and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended June 30, 2005, which report
        appears in the June 30, 2005 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Precision Optics
        Corporation, Inc.
  
 /s/
        VITALE, CATURANO & COMPANY, LTD.
 
 September
        27, 2005
 Boston,
        Massachusetts
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2023

No. 04-22-00658-CV

Michael R. VOORHIES and Norelle Voorhies,

Appellants

v.

TOWN OF HOLLYWOOD PARK, TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-CI-02380

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellants’ brief is due on or before January 20, 2023. No further extensions absent extenuating 

circumstances. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 5th day of January, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY