alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 40-F of Rogers Communications Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of British
Columbia (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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), 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.



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 24, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | Nadir H. Mohamed                   
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Nadir H. Mohamed                     
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                                                              
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 24, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | William W. Linton                                          
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | William W. Linton                                            
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Manufacturins Process Description 

[ X ] - CBI- entire pqe
H. Res. 1307 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 9, 2008. 

Whereas Bhutan is a nation cloistered among some of the 

highest peaks in the eastern Himalayas and has for hundreds of years served as a sanctuary for the rich and 

unique Bhutanese culture; 

Whereas Bhutan hosts some of the most pristine and biologically diverse natural environments in the modern 

world, owing to the agrarian society’s unique farming 

traditions that are rooted in a deep appreciation for the 

land and humble devotion to its protection; 

Whereas Bhutan participated in the 2008 Smithsonian 

Folklife Festival and shared with the people of the 

United States many aspects of its unique culture and traditions, including its special approach towards life, described in national policy as the pursuit of ‘‘Gross National Happiness’’; 

Whereas Bhutan was only in recent decades accessible by 

road and airplane but is now sharing with people 

throughout the world its special cultural traditions that 

include 13 traditional arts, zorig chusum, monastic dancers who perform ritual dances from sacred tsechus festivals, and weavers who create some of the most coveted 

textiles in the world; 
2 

•HRES 1307 EH 

Whereas Bhutan is transitioning to a parliamentary democracy, owing to the leadership of King Jigme Singye 

Wangchuck, who abdicated his throne on December 14, 

2006, and his son King Jigme Khesar Namgyel 

Wangchuck, who is committed to conducting parliamentary elections; and 

Whereas King Jigme Singye Wangchuck devolved all executive authority from the throne to the cabinet in 1998, initiated the process of drafting a constitution in 2001, ordered by royal decree an end to Bhutan’s absolute monarchy and the establishment of a parliamentary democracy in 2008, and issued to the people of Bhutan a historic document, or tsathrim, stating that ‘‘Bhutan is a 

sovereign Kingdom and the Sovereign power belongs to 

the people of Bhutan’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives— 

(1) commemorates Bhutan’s participation in the 

2008 Smithsonian Folklife Festival; 

(2) recognizes the important cultural, artistic, agricultural, and environmental achievements of Bhutan and 

the Bhutanese people; 

(3) commends the Bhutanese people, the Government of the Kingdom of Bhutan, and His Majesty King 

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck for their commitment to conducting parliamentary elections and 

transitioning from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy; and 
3 

•HRES 1307 EH 

(4) remains committed to working with Bhutan, 

should it so desire, to foster cultural exchange and to assist in promoting democratic reform. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-122576-CV

JACKIE COLLINSMiItTxX, LtTdD., WhHiItTeE ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD., 	APPELLANTS

AND WeElLlLsS ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD.	APPELLANT

	V.

TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICTGoOrRdDoOnN S. SwWiIfFtT CoOnNsSuUlLtTiInNgG EnNgGiInNeEeErR, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 236thTH236TH  DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------NO. 2-08-054   -        -CV

RoOyYcCeE AlLlLeEnN SaAnNdDeErRsS	APPELLANT	

	V.

ThHeErReEsSaA AnNnN SaAnNdDeErRsS	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 360TH360TH         DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT            COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On aUGUST aPRILApril 14, 2008                          August 9July 5, 2006, we notified appellant[s]  that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed theis court that arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2).  See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant[s], within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant[s] [hasves /have] not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant[s] shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.   WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED:   August 3 0, 1, 20062006July 27, 2006May 58, 2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 14, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 47 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-257, CP2023-260.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-19826 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

 

          I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., certify that: 

          1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of inTEST Corporation; 

          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; 

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

          4.    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)) 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)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

        (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 

          5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors: 

        (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. 

Date: November 14, 2007/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. MICHAEL F. COLLINS *v.*JOHN D. SPICER, as Comptroller, etc.

*Practice*— *a/ppeal from, an order of General Term, modifying a peremptory writ of*mandamus— *Code of Oivil Procedure, secs.*190, 191, 1356, 2070.

Appeals from an order granting, in the first instance, a peremptory writ of *mandamus*are taken as from an order, not as from a judgment.

The provisions of subdivision 3 of section 191 of the said Code have no application to such an appeal.

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of the General Term modifying, and affirming as modified, an order of the Special Term awarding a peremptory writ of *mandamus.*

*Wm. J.*lioche, for the motion *exponte.*

By the Court :

This was an application for a writ of *mandamus.*A peremptory writ was granted on affidavits, and in the first instance by the Special Term, September, 1883. (Code, § 2070.) An appeal was taken from the order granting the writ, and was argued at the November term, 1883. It was decided at the January term, 1884. The order of the Special Term had commanded the defendant to countersign two bills, one for $1,016.39, the other for $405.75. The order of the General Term reversed that of the Special Term as to the former, and modified it as to the latter by reducing the amount from $405.75 to $398.25. It is stated by the defendants’ counsel that the order upon the decision of the General Term was not drawn up until November or December, 1884; that it was filed in December, 1884. The order is entitled as of November term, 1883. The relators appealed December 8, 1884, to the Court of Appeals from so much of the order of the General Term as reversed the order of the Special Term. The defendants’ counsel now applies for an order allowing him to appeal under Code, section 191, subdivision 3. On reference to section 2087 it will be seen that a distinction is made between proceedings where an alternative writ is first issued, and then a peremptory writ, and those in which a peremptory writ *585is issued in tbe first instance. In the latter case that section provides' that an appeal is to be taken as from a final order made in a special proceeding. In the former case it is to be taken as an appeal from a judgment. In the present case there is no judgment. There is an order of the Special Term granting a peremptory writ; and an order of the General Term modifying the former,, but still granting a. peremptory writ. Indeed all the papers show, that the parties have treated the matter in this light. By the section above cited, therefore, the appeals are taken as from an order in a special proceeding, first under section 1356 to the General Term, then under section 190, subdivision 3, to the Court of Appeals. It appears to us, therefore, that section 191, subdivision 3, does not apply, as there is no judgment.

Application is denied.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bocees and Landon, JJ.

Motion for leave to go to the Court of Appeals denied.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1340 

Recognizing the 358th Fighter Group for its outstanding service and bravery 

during World War II and commending its successor, the 122nd Fighter 

Wing, for continuing its legacy of excellence in service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2008 

Mr. SOUDER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 358th Fighter Group for its outstanding 

service and bravery during World War II and commending its successor, the 122nd Fighter Wing, for continuing its legacy of excellence in service. 

Whereas the 358th Fighter Group, also known as the Orange 

Tail, was activated on January 1, 1943; 

Whereas in April 1944, the 358th Fighter Group was instrumental in the preparation for the invasion of Normandy; 

Whereas 4 Distinguished Unit Citations (DUCs) were awarded to the Orange Tail; 

Whereas the first DUC earned was for assisting the 7th 

Army and defending Allied airfields during an intense 

German air invasion during December 1944 and January 

1945; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1340 IH 

Whereas the second DUC was earned for actions that prevented the March 1945 evacuation of German military 

forces; 

Whereas the third DUC was awarded for attacking air fields, 

assisting Allied armies, and destroying significant German transportation equipment; 

Whereas the fourth DUC was given by the French in gratitude for liberation; 

Whereas the 358th Fighter Group displayed utmost determination, bravery, and conducted many acts of courage 

and skill; 

Whereas the 358th Fighter Group was inactivated in 1945 

and recreated as the 122nd Fighter Wing in 1946 as 

part of the Indiana Air National Guard, now located in 

Fort Wayne, Indiana; 

Whereas the 122nd Fighter Wing has continued the 358th 

Fighter Group’s honorable legacy, and has been deployed 

in the Berlin crisis, Operation Desert Storm, Operation 

Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch, and the 

Global War on Terror; and 

Whereas the 122nd Fighter Wing has continued the excellent 

service which was exemplary in the 358th Fighter Group, 

and has been awarded four Air Force Outstanding Unit 

awards: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the 358th Fighter Group for its outstanding service and 

3 bravery during World War II, and commends its sucVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:08 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1340.IH HR1340

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1340 IH 

1 cessor, the 122nd Fighter Wing, for continuing its legacy 

2 of excellence in service. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
NMDMB 06-94

LEGAL GUIDANCE

BOILERPLATE AGREEMENTS AND VENDOR
OFFERS OF FREE EXTRAS

Perhaps due to the similarities between
their missions, the types of personnel they
both employ and the kinds of routine and
specialized supplies and equipment they
use, vendors often fail to recognize that
a Naval Medical Treatment Facility (MTF),
as an entity of the Federal Government,
must conduct its business affairs dif-
ferently from its civilian counterparts.
In marketing their products, vendors often
insist that government officials sign a
commercial agreements they use with all
their nongovernment customers. They may
also make unsolicited offers of "free"
supplies, support equipment, maintenance
and user training. Again, these offers
parallel those the vendors routinely make
to civilian organizations. Although these
agreements might appear to be innocuous
and the offers "good deals for the Navy,"
both can present legal pitfalls.

All Navy acquisitions, including those for
medical supplies, equipment and services,
must be conducted following the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the im-
plementing DoD and Navy regulations. These
rules apply whether the items are purchased
or leased. In many cases, they mandate the
use of special contract provisions that
are drafted to protect the interests of
the Government to the maximum extent.
Absent special authority, no Navy con-
tracting office can deviate from them. The
boilerplate found in a vendor's commercial
agreement may be inconsistent with the
clauses found in the FAR guidelines. This
is often true in the treatment of warranty
coverage, risk of loss to vendor-owned
equipment and renewals of the agreement
itself. vendor-drafted clauses frequently
exclude legal rights and remedies normally
reserved to the Government in its con-
tracts, such as the right to terminate the
contract for default or the Government's
convenience. They also often attempt to
apply state laws to the Federal Government.

Few offers for "free" items come with no
strings attached. They are most often
accompanied by requirements that the MTF
commit in advance to the purchase of a
minimum amount or that the MTF purchase
related products exclusively from the

vendor in question. When the "free" items
represent valid needs of the MTF, the
safest procedure to take is to purchase or
lease them with appropriated funds and to
follow strictly all procurement statutes
and regulations. The acceptance such ven-
dor offers may circumvent these laws and
regulations, give one vendor an unfair
competitive advantage over others, and
lead to bid protests by other vendors.
Signing certain vendor agreements may also
constitute an unauthorized commitment made
on behalf of the Government or the un-
authorized acceptance of a gift to the
Navy.

In short, be very cautious when a vendor
wants you to sign its standard commercial
agreement or makes your activity an offer
that appears to be too good to be true.
Doubtful cases should be referred to
counsel for a legal opinion.

NMLC point of contact is Mr. John R. Osing,
Jr., Office of Counsel, who may be reached
at (301) 619-2157 or by DSN at 343-2157.
<TABLE>
Exhibit 11 -- Statement Re: Computation of Per-Share Earnings
<CAPTION>
                                                    Year ended August 31,
                                                       1996        1995  
                                                    ---------   ---------
Primary

  <S>                                              <C>         <C>
  Average shares outstanding                        1,565,284   1,557,373

  Net effect of dilutive stock options -
     based on the treasury stock method
     using average market price                       160,724     101,101
                                                    ---------   ---------
  Total                                             1,726,008   1,658,474
                                                    =========   =========
  Net income                                       $  665,355  $  645,054
                                                    =========   =========
  Per-share amount                                      $0.39       $0.39
                                                         ====        ====
Fully Diluted

  Average shares outstanding                        1,565,284   1,557,373

  Net effect of dilutive stock options -
     based on the treasury stock method
     using the year-end market price, if
     higher than average market price                 164,343     109,815
                                                    ---------   ---------
  Total                                             1,729,627   1,667,188
                                                    =========   =========
  Net income                                       $  665,355  $  645,054
                                                    =========   =========
  Per-share amount                                      $0.39       $0.39
                                                         ====        ====
</TABLE>