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

CERTIFICATION

 

          I, Robert E. Matthiessen, 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: August 13, 2004/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
From: Kim MBride

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s preventative healthcare

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:19:58 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
No. 100.

No. 103.

No. 105.

No. 149.

No. 154.

No. 156.

No. 160.

No. 301.

No. 293, Misc.

#### Harris *v.*Florida Real Estate Commission et al., Johnson *v.*Texas, Readey et al. *v.*St. Louis County Water Co. et al., Harlow et al. *v.*United States, Richardson *v.*Brunner et al., Houston *v.*United States, La Maur, Inc., *v.*L. S. Donaldson Co. et al., Weigel *v.*Partenweederei et al., Biggs *v.*Acme Furnace Fitting Co. et al.,

*ante,*p. 7;

*ante,*p. 828;

*ante,*p. 8 ;

*ante,*p. 814;

*ante,*p. 815 ;

*ante,*p. 815;

*ante,*p. 815;

*ante,*p. 830; and

*ante,*p. 853.

Petitions for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
From: bridges.dale@mccg.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:20:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dale Bridges

Forsyth, GA 31029
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12

- 12928

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- cr

- 20896

- JAL

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

QUARTAVIOUS DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

Before ED CAR

NES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. *

BY THE COURT :

* Senior United S tates Circuit Judge Joel F. Dubina has elected not to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).

Case: 12-12928 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 1 of 2Petitions for rehearing en banc having been filed, a member of this Court in

active service having requested a poll on wh ether this case should be reheard en

banc, and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having voted in

favor of granting rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this case will be reheard

en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED.

Case: 12-12928 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Robinson Financial
Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this
Certification (the “Report”), we, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer and
Jamie E. McReynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.




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




By:  /s/ Rick L.
    Catt
                
                By: /s/ Jamie E.
  McReynoldsName:  Rick
      L. Catt
                
                Name:  Jamie
      E. McReynoldsChief
      Executive Officer
                
                Chief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      13, 2009
                
                February
      13, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Farrell, Appellant.

Order dismissing writ of *habeas corpus*affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion hy Dykman, J.
EXHIBIT  99.7








CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





In connection with the annual report of TransGlobe Energy Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall C. Neely, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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, 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 Registrant.










/s/   Randall C. Neely


Name: Randall C. Neely


Title:  Chief Financial Officer


March 15, 2017
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operations
          of the Company.



/s/ Michael Prince
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
June 9, 2009
No. 423.

#### Glynn *v.*Dubin, alias Doctorman, et al.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Arthur H. Nielsen*for respondents.

Supreme Court of Utah. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002     In connection with the Annual Report onForm 10-K of LNBBancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) for the periodending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Daniel E. Klimas, President andChief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Corporation.     /s/ Daniel E. Klimas           Daniel E. Klimas *President and Chief Executive Officer*March 13, 2006
81
From: cfjohnston5@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:53:30 PM

I strongly believe that all contraception and sterilization procedures should be totally covered by

insurance. The fewer conceptions to start with would make this issue of abortion less relevant. If we

withhold money for these procedures, we are surely going to have more poor mothers having babies,

more families on government aid. That is exactly what we don't want to have happen. So I strongly

believe that all contraception, sterilization should be fully covered. As far as the morning after pill and

abortion services, personally I believe that should be covered also but understand not all would agree.

However, a woman should have the right to control her own body under any circumstances. Abortion

will not stop just because insurance doesn't covered it and will not stop if it is illegal either. I believe it

is a given but should have limits...perhaps not permitted after 12 weeks. Young teens need education

about sex over and over...not penallized by having a child not wanted.

Sincerely,

charlene johnston

Toledo, OH 43606
1/30/13 page of



### INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT (IRExR)

Chemical ID: P-13-0206 Reviewer: Kwon/SS

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary

Exposure Scenario 1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air Drinking Water Fish Ingestion
ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q10 4
CC = 1 PDM Days Exceede d LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD

Release activity(ies) 2 ; exposure calculation(s) 3 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day

max acute eco --- --- --- --- 5.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- ---

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manuf acturing (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release activity labels. Multiple release activities are combined in one exposure scenario if their releases occur at same location. 3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (A DR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q 10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily streamflow of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period.

Remarks:1/30/13 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0206 Assessor: Kwon/SS

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: Max ADR
Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Non-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Remarks:1/30/13 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0206

SIC-CODE BASED HUMAN AND AQUATIC EXPOSURES TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

SCENARIO #: 1 Number of Sites: RELEASE ACTIVITY: Max ADR

SIC-CODE DESCRIPTION: POTW's (All facilities) SIC-CODE (S): 4952 EX POSED POPULATION: Adult

WWT REMOVAL (%) RELEASE DAYS PRETREATMENT RELEASE (kg/site/day) POSTTREATMENT RELEASE (kg/site/day) DWT (%) BCF (L/kg)

0.00 0.00

AQUATIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES - SURFACE WATER

PLANT TYPE % ILE FACILITY STREAM FLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. ( μ g/l)

Harmonic

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 Harmonic Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10

ALL 50 125.56 44.02 26.80 22.53 4.18E-03 1.19E-02 1.96E-02 2.33E-02

ALL 10 11.11 1.94 1.06 0.96 4.73E-02 0.27 0.50 0.55

DRINKING WATER AND FISH IN GESTION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

Exposure Units Drinking Water Results Drinking Water Units Fish Ingestion Results Fish Ingestion

Units 50% 10% 50% 10%

Cancer

LADD pot 8.93E-11 1.01E-09 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day

LADC pot 4.58E-09 5.18E-08 mg/L 0.00 0.00 mg/kg

Acute

ADR pot 9.97E-07 2.26E-05 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day

SIC Code Comments:
Order filed January 14, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00906

- CV

____________ SHELIAH DEVEREAUX A ND KEVIN TAYLOR , Appellant s
V.

PLAN B FINANCIAL LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1142998



### O R D E R
Appellant s’ brief was due December 19, 2019

. No brief or motion for extension of time has been filed. Unless appellant s file a brief with this court on or
before February 13, 2020 , t he court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
From: wrkn4777@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Next comes forced sterilization,at our cost of course: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:55:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Laurie Rain

Chino, CA 91710
EXHIBIT 21

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant




Subsidiary                                  Jurisdiction of Organization

Immucor Medizinische Diagnostik GmbH        Federal Republic of Germany

Immucor Italia S.r.l.                       Italy

Immucor Portugal, Lda.                      Portugal

Gamma Biologicals, Inc.                     United States (Texas)

Dominion Biologicals Limited                Canada

Immucor, S.L.                               Spain

Immucor Acquisitions Inc. S.A.              Belgium

Immucor Belgium S.A.                        Belgium

Immucor France EURL                         France

Immucor Trading Company                     Barbados

BCA Acquisition Company                     United States (Georgia)


The Company owns 100% of the outstanding stock of each of the above.
From: mmorin77@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:32:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Morin

Redding, CA 96099