alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.02A

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Randy R. Wiese, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of CSG Systems International, 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 report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date:  | August 29, 2016 |   | /s/ Randy R. Wiese                                   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |            |   | Randy R. Wiese                                       |
|   |            |   | Executive Vice President and Chief 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 on Form 10-Q of Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael D. Kishbauch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 17, 2006 |  |  |  | /S/    MICHAEL D. KISHBAUCH                               
|                        |  |  |  | Michael D. Kishbauch President and Chief Executive 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.
5:14-cr-20594-JCO-DRG Doc # 23 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 88
5:14-cr-20594-JCO-DRG Doc # 23 Filed 01/20/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 89
§ 671.7 General issuance criteria. ( a ) Upon receipt of a complete and properly executed application for a permit, the Director will decide whether and on what conditions he will issue a permit. In making this decision, the Director will carefully consider any comments or suggestions received from interested parties, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies pursuant to § 671.6(d), and will determine whether the permit requested meets the objectives of the Act, the Protocol, and the requirements of these regulations.
( b ) Permits authorizing the use or release of designated pollutants or wastes may be issued only if, based on relevant available information, the Director determines that such use or release will not pose a substantial hazard to health or the environment, taking into account available information on the possible cumulative impact of multiple releases.
§ 113.50-15 Loudspeakers. ( a ) Loudspeakers must be located to eliminate feedback or other interference which would degrade communication.
( b ) Loudspeakers must be located to provide intelligible and audible one-way communication throughout the vessel. Weatherdeck loudspeakers must be watertight and suitably protected from the effects of the wind and seas.
( c ) There must be a sufficient number of loudspeakers throughout the vessel. The public address system must be installed with regard to acoustically marginal conditions and not require any action from the addressee. With the vessel underway in normal conditions, the minimum sound pressure levels for broadcasting emergency announcements must be— ( 1 ) In interior spaces, 75 dB(A) or, if the background noise level exceeds 75 dB(A), then at least 20 dB(A) above maximum background noise level; and
( 2 ) In exterior spaces, 80 dB(A) or, if the background noise level exceeds 80 dB(A), then at least 15 dB(A) above maximum background noise level.
( d ) Loudspeakers must not have external volume controls or local cutout switches.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28291, June 4, 1996; 61 FR 36787, July 12, 1996]
#### In the Matter of the Revocation of Letters of Administration of the Estate of Robert J. Fitzgerald, Deceased. David A. Fitzgerald, Appellant; Katherine Fitzgerald, Respondent.

*Matter of Fitzgerald,*139 App. Div. 910, affirmed.

(Argued October 6, 1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 24, 1908, • which affirmed an order of the New York County Surrogate’s Court revoking letters of administration theretofore granted on the estate of Robert J. Fitzgerald, deceased.

*J. Power Donellan*and *George L. Stamm*for appellant.

*Jacob liouss*and *Louis J. Grant*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
# -

HALEY BARBOUR GOVERNOR

### ZOW [**~., ~**  MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAti1)Y TRUDY D. FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

### RECEIVED November 29,2010 Superfund Division 

### DEC 3 2010 Mrs. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming Regional Administrator Immediate Office U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 Re: Kerr-McGee Chemical site Columbus, Lowndes County, MS DearMrs. Fleming: The U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) letter ofNovember 2,2010, from Mr. Franklin E. Hill, Directorofthe Superfund Division, requested written support for EPA to proceed with the National Priorities List (NPL) listingprocess for the above referenced Kerr-McGee Chemical site. I have reviewed the matter and concurwith EPA's decision to proceedwith the listing process with the understanding that no commitment offinancial resources is being made on the part ofthe State ofMississippi regarding costs associated with a cleanup at the Kerr-McGee Chemical site at this time. The State looks forward to working withEPA in this matterto ensure protection ofhuman health and the environment. Should you need anything further from the State on this matter, please feel free to contact me at 601-961-5000.

Trudy Executive Director TDF:jar cc: Jerry Cain Jerry Banks

POST OFFICE Box 2261 0 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39225-2261 TEL: (601) 961-5000 0 FAX: (601) 961-5794 www.deq.state.ms.us 0 0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
#### § 15.1001 General.

Self-propelled vessels engaged in foreign commerce are required to use a pilot holding a valid MMC or license with appropriate endorsement as a first-class pilot when operating in the navigable waters of the United States specified in this subpart.

[CGD 92-061, 60 FR 24796, May 10, 1995, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11263, Mar. 16, 2009]
§ 83.10 General obligations. ( a ) *Eligibility for support.* No entity will be provided Federal support unless such entity has furnished the Director assurances satisfactory to him or her that it will not discriminate on the basis of sex, in violation of this part, in the admission of individuals to each of its training programs.
( b ) *Eliminating the effects of discrimination.* An assurance of compliance with this part will not be satisfactory to the Director if the entity submitting such assurance fails to take whatever remedial action in accordance with § 83.3(a) that is necessary for such entity to eliminate the effects of any discrimination on the basis of sex in the admission of individuals to its training programs that such entity practiced prior to the submission to the Director of such assurance, or practices at the time of or subsequent to such submission. The Director may require such entity, as a condition to determining that its assurance is, or remains, satisfactory, to take specific actions, or to submit to him or her specific information, bearing upon compliance with this part.
§ 113.35-3 General requirements. ( a ) Each self-propelled vessel, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, must have an electric or mechanical engine order telegraph system from the navigating bridge to the engineroom.
( b ) On a vessel with more than one propulsion engine, each engine must have this system.
( c ) On a double-ended vessel that has two navigating bridges, this system must be between the engineroom and each navigating bridge.
( d ) If a small vessel has no engine order telegraph system between the navigating bridge and the engineroom, the propulsion plant must be controlled entirely from the navigating bridge, with no means of normal engine control from the engineroom.
( e ) On vessels equipped with pilothouse control, each local control station in the engineroom must have an indicator if: ( 1 ) Manual operation from the local control station is an alternative means of control; and
( 2 ) The local control station is not immediately adjacent to the engineroom control station; and
( 3 ) Reliable voice communication and calling that meets the requirements of § 113.30-5(h) is not provided.
( f ) Engine order telegraph and remote propulsion control systems must be electrically separate and independent, except that a single mechanical operator control device with separate transmitters and connections for each system may be used.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 81-030, 53 FR 17847, May 18, 1988; CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28290, June 4, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 181 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 181

   To permit members of the House of Representatives to donate used 
     computer equipment to public elementary and secondary schools 
                       designated by the members.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Serrano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To permit members of the House of Representatives to donate used 
     computer equipment to public elementary and secondary schools 
                       designated by the members.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO DONATE 
              USED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

    (a) In General.--Section 104(a)(3) of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 1987 (as incorporated by reference in section 
101(j) of Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591) (2 U.S.C. 117e(3)) 
is amended to read as follows:
            ``(3)(A) At the request of a member of the House of 
        Representatives, in the case of equipment consisting of 
        computers and related peripheral tools previously used by the 
        member, the Clerk may donate the equipment to a public 
        elementary or secondary school (as defined in section 9101 of 
        the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) without 
        regard to whether the donation meets the requirements of the 
        second sentence of paragraph (2).
            ``(B) At the request of the member who previously used the 
        equipment, if the Clerk donates equipment under this paragraph, 
        the Clerk shall donate the equipment to a school designated by 
        the member.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect June 1, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
§ 96.16 Applicability of title XVII of the Reconciliation Act (31 U.S.C. 7301-7305). This section interprets the applicability of the general provisions governing block grants set forth in title XVII of the Reconciliation Act (31 U.S.C. 7301-7305): ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section or unless inconsistent with provisions in the individual block grant statutes, 31 U.S.C. 7301-7305 apply to the community services, preventive health and health services, and alcohol and drug abuse and mental health services block grants.
( b ) The requirement in 31 U.S.C. 7303(b) relating to public hearings does not apply to any of the block grants governed by this part. Instead, the provisions in the individual block grant statutes apply.
( c ) The maternal and child health services block grant is not subject to any requirements of 31 U.S.C. 7301-7305.
( d ) The social services and low-income home energy assistance programs are subject only to 31 U.S.C. 7304.
( e ) The audit provisions of 31 U.S.C. 7305 have, in most cases, been overridden by the Single Audit Act. Pub. L. 98-502, 31 U.S.C. 75, *et seq.,* and do not apply to the block grants. Pursuant to § 96.31(b)(2), certain entities may, however, elect to conduct audits under the block grant audit provisions. For entities making this election, the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 7305 apply to the community services block grant.
( f ) The applicability of 31 U.S.C. 7303(a) relating to the contents of a report on proposed uses of funds is specified in § 96.10.
[52 FR 37966, Oct. 13, 1987]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

DARLA HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 14-CV-13774-DT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. The

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued his report on

February 5, 2016 recommending that this court deny plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. No objections have

been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1

Having reviewed the file and the Report, the court concludes that the findings

and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for

purposes of this Order.

 1 The failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the court from its duty to

independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

2:14-cv-13774-RHC-APP Doc # 19 Filed 03/09/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 514
ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and

defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 9, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

and/or pro se parties on this date, March 9, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2

2:14-cv-13774-RHC-APP Doc # 19 Filed 03/09/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 515
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Brenda Clayton 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

Asset Acceptance, LLC 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK 

 

 

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice 

submitted by the parties; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

 s/Denise Page Hood 

 United States District Court 

DATE: January 13, 2015 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK ECF No. 10, PageID.27 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

DELILAH ESCALANTE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-12928

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER SUSPENDING DEADLINES

On September 10, 2014, the court held an off the record scheduling conference

with the parties. The court recognizes that the parties are discussing reaching an

amicable resolution to this matter and finds no need for court supervision at this time. If

the parties have not reached an amicable resolution by October 9, 2014, the court will

conduct a telephone conference on that date to determine the status of their efforts. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that all deadlines are SUSPENDED until October 9, 2014. The

Parties are DIRECTED to inform the court of any resolution on or before October 9,

2014. If no resolution has been reached by October 9, 2014, counsel are DIRECTED to

appear for a conference, by telephone, on October 9, 2014, at 11:00 am.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 19, 2014

2:14-cv-12928-RHC-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 49
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 19, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\DMI\Civil\14-12928.Escalante.OrderSuspendingDeadlines.DMI.wpd

2

2:14-cv-12928-RHC-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 50
# C_2008052EN.01002301.xml

| 26.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/23

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Amendment of public service obligations imposed on certain scheduled air services in Spain

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 52/08)

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, the Spanish Government has decided to amend the public service obligations imposed in respect of scheduled air services in the Canary Islands published in OJ C 47 of 1.3.2007.

The reference single fare for each of the routes will be as follows:

| (a) | Gran Canaria-Tenerife North: EUR 56 |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Gran Canaria-Tenerife North: EUR 56

| (b) | Gran Canaria-Tenerife South: EUR 56 |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Gran Canaria-Tenerife South: EUR 56

| (c) | Gran Canaria-Fuerteventura: EUR 64 |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Gran Canaria-Fuerteventura: EUR 64

| (d) | Gran Canaria-El Hierro: EUR 94 |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Gran Canaria-El Hierro: EUR 94

| (e) | Gran Canaria-Lanzarote: EUR 72 |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Gran Canaria-Lanzarote: EUR 72

| (f) | Gran Canaria-La Palma: EUR 88 |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Gran Canaria-La Palma: EUR 88

| (g) | Tenerife North-Fuerteventura: EUR 89 |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Tenerife North-Fuerteventura: EUR 89

| (h) | Tenerife North-El Hierro: EUR 64 |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Tenerife North-El Hierro: EUR 64

| (i) | Tenerife North-Lanzarote: EUR 94 |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Tenerife North-Lanzarote: EUR 94

| (j) | Tenerife North-La Palma: EUR 59 |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Tenerife North-La Palma: EUR 59

| (k) | La Palma-Lanzarote: EUR 94 |
| --- | --- |

(k)

La Palma-Lanzarote: EUR 94

| (l) | Gran Canaria-La Gomera: EUR 88 |
| --- | --- |

(l)

Gran Canaria-La Gomera: EUR 88

| (m) | Tenerife North-La Gomera: EUR 64. |
| --- | --- |

(m)

Tenerife North-La Gomera: EUR 64.

The other requirements of the public service obligations published in OJ C 255 of 21.10.2006 remain unchanged.

---
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 March 31, 2003 Quarterly  Report of Pacific Sands,  Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Stan  Paulus,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Registrant,  certify,  in
accordance  with 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on my knowledge:

     (i)  the  Report,  to which this  certification  is attached as an exhibit,
          fully  complies  with  the   requirements  of  Section  13(a)  of  the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and,

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


Dated: June 16, 2003                                 /s/ Stan Paulus
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Stan Paulus
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
[No. 3324.]

#### Knudtson v. Pitcher, Administrator.

An appeal in a case not appealable dismissed without prejudice, neither party, after notice, suggesting any disposition of the cause.

*189
      *Appeal from San Miguel District Court.*Hon. Sprigg Shackleford, Judge.

Mr. Fred *~W.*Heath, for appellant.

Messrs. Howe & Adams, for appellee.

*Per Curicm.*

This appeal was filed in the supreme court in 1907. An examination discloses that it is not an appealable case and it has been suggested that both appellant and appellee are dead.

Counsel for both, after due notice, have neglected to make suggestion as to further disposition of the case. The appeal is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

*Per Curiam.*
#### § 97.15 For what purposes can grant funds be used?

Funds awarded under a consolidated grant must be used for purposes authorized by the statutes and regulations of the programs included in the consolidated grant. In its application for a consolidated grant the insular area is to indicate the amount of funds that will be allocated to the eligible programs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD DEWALT BEVERLY,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NO: 1:08−CV−01538−AWI−GSA

XX −− Decision by the Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

 have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

 THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

 COURT'S ORDER OF 1/28/09

Victoria C. Minor

Clerk of Court

ENTERED: January 28, 2009

by: /s/ J. Hellings

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:08-cv-01538-AWI-GSA Document 36 Filed 01/28/2009 Page 1 of 1