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: May 14, 2007/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
From: Pat Ament

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"shealth care

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:45:42 AM

A women's health care choices should not be up to her employer nor is the women's health

records the employers business
HomeDANTESDEDCDISCNADLPFAQProspective SchoolsInstitution LoginPrintContactBack

DANTES 2014
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 30 31

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Raym on d Gea rh art

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

Ro be rt Ge or ge

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff

v.

Sarr azi ne , Dr.; Eli zab et h Wein er, Dr.; S ha wn Ri ce, Dr.; W il li am s, Co un se lo r;

Lin da San de rs , W ard en ; Rh od es , Offic er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

23 , 20 14 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 11 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Raym on d Gearh art ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr es erv ic e di sm is sa l as

du pl ic at iv e of hi s co m

pl ai nt un de r Bi ve ns v. Si x Unk no wn Nam ed Age nt s of Fed

. Bu reau of Narco ti cs , 4 03 U.S. 3 88 (1 97 1)

. W e gr an t h i s ren ewed m ot io n fo r le av e
to pr oc eed in fo rm a pa up eri s on ap pe al

. As to th e m eri ts of th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r,

we ag ree th at th e cl ai m s a r i s i n g f r om th e fo rced ad m in is tra ti on of m ed ic at io ns are du pl ic at iv e, as th ere was an ot he r pe nd in g Bi ve ns su it fil ed by Gearh art th at rai se d th e

sa m e cl ai m s. The refo re th os e cl ai m s were pr op erl y di sm is se d- -wh et he r un de r 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B) or 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A. See Mo or e v . Sim s, 2 00 F.3d 11 70
, 1 1 7 1 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ( d e n o v o r e v i e w o f § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B) di sm is sa l); Co op er v. Sch rir o, 18 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (p er

cu ria m ) (d e no vo rev ie w of § 19 15 A di sm is sa l); Aziz v. B u r r o w s , 97 6 F.2 d 11 58
, 11 58 -5 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (aff irming § 1 9 1 5 di sm is sa l on gr ou nd th at co ur ts m ay di sm is s du pl ic at ive co m

pl ai nt rai si ng is su es di rect ly rel at ed to is su es in ot he r pe nd in g
act io n by sa m e pa rty). Howev er, we fin d th at th e cl ai m s a r i s i n g fro m de fen da nt Offi cer Rh od es ’s al le ge d as sa ul t on Gearh art was im pr op erl y di sm is se d, se e St on e v. Harry, 36 4 F.3 d 91 2, 91 4 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 04 ) (p ro se co m pl ai nt s m us t be li be ral ly

co ns tru ed ), be cau s e on ly on e of th e fo ur cas es th e di st ric t co ur t id en ti fie d as du pl ic at iv e was st il l pe nd in g whe n th e in st an t di sm is sa l or de r was e n t e r e d, an d th e

co m pl ai nt in th at pe nd in g act io n co nt ai ne d no su ch cl ai m

. W e th us rev ers e th e di sm is sa l of th at cl ai m an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. In al l ot he r res pe ct s, we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
From: boba@onyxtop.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:21:54 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,

Robert Awerkamp

Belvue, KS 66407
No. 79, Misc.

#### Hucks *v.*United States.

*Charles E. Robbins*and *Benedict F. FitzGerald, Jr.*for petitioner. *Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Miller*and *Philip R. Monahan*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
From: mahancock90@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:48 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,

Matthew Hancock

Cleveland, OH 44124
No. 525.

#### Loehde et ux. *v.*Wisconsin River Power Co. et al.

*Richard P. Tinkham, Jr.*for petitioners.

*Theo. W. Brazeau*and *Richard S. Brazeau*for respondents.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Docket: EBSA-2010-0018 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of 

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services 

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment 

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0071 

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684 

Submitter Information 

Name: Lisa N Wright 

Address: 

Clover, SC, 

Organization: Private Individual 

General Comment 

All companies should have the right to decide whether to provide birth control and/or pregnancy 

termination procedures in their health care plans. 

Any company that has religious objections to the above should be exempted from the currently 

required practices above. By not allowing them to do so, you are requiring them to live against 

their religious conscience or terminate insurance coverage to their employees. 

This is a direct attack of our government again God and Christianity.

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: August 30, 2011 

Received: August 30, 2011 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80f08b41 

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=090... 8/30/2011
#### Virginia International Land, Loan and Trust Company, Respondent, v. James McKaye, Appellant.

Order reversed, without costs. Opinion by Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM INNOVATIVE VALVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,798,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,474,442
<INVENTORY>                                 27,367,943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            65,484,745
<PP&E>                                      39,767,452
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,461,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             186,114,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,685,492
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,665
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,259,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               186,114,526
<SALES>                                     43,930,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,930,553
<CGS>                                       30,802,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,802,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,931,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                   271,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,071)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 75, Misc.

#### Bush *v.*Texas.

*Charles Alan Wright*for petitioner.

*Will Wilson,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Sam R. Wilson, Linward Shivers*and *Charles R. Lind,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

Motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas granted. Case transferred to the appellate docket.
No. 234.

#### Texaco, Inc., *v.*Federal Trade Commission.

*Milton Handler*and *Cecelia H. Goetz*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Elliott H. Moyer*and *James Mcl. Henderson*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered April 10 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01329
- CV
ZIA UL
- HAQ SHEIKH, Appellant

V. JANE DOE, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial Dis trict Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 08987

ORDER Before the Court are appellant’s April 6, 2020 motion to seal portions of appellant’s opening brief, appellee’s April 7, 2020 response, and appellant’s April 8, 2020 reply letter

. We note the clerk’s record , due to be filed March 12, 2020, has not yet been filed, and appellant’s opening brief , filed April 1, 2020, has been deemed deficient. Accordingly, b ecause appellant’s brief has been deemed deficient, we DENY aspremature appe llant’s motion. To avoid confusion with any corrected brief

appellant may file, we STRIKE the April 1st brief. Because the appeal cannot proceed without the clerk’s record, we ORDER
Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file the clerk’s record no later than April 20, 2020. The clerk’s record shall be filed in accordance with our order of March 2, 2020.
A ppellant’s corrected brief shall be filed within thirty days of the filing of the clerk’s record.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a c opy of this order to Ms. Pitre and the parties.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM F&M
BANCORP'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          55,490
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,625
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,052
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    349,806
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          89,405
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,226,124
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,795,244
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,364,032
<SHORT-TERM>                                   238,071
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             19,315
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,073
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,795,244
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                101,081
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               24,352
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   745
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               126,178
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              46,179
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,142
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           65,036
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,236
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 633
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 62,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,795
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,324
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.53
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,669
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,230
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,057
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 14,548
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,068
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    5,526
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,454
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,232
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,012


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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.
Date:	November 12, 2010

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

BakBone Software Incorporated: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-109390) on Form S-8 of BakBone Software Incorporated of our reportdated June 25, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of BakBone Software Incorporated and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensiveloss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2004, which report appears in the March 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of BakBone Software Incorporated. 

 

Our report refers to the restatement of the Company’s consolidatedfinancial statements as of March 31, 2003, and for each of the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 2003. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

June 29, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT KARL BARGER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 109 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of August, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
## RECORD OF CONTACT WITH OUTSIDE PARTY TO **DISCUSS ISSUES RELATED TO INFORMAL RULEMAKING** 

Th **AGENCY KEEPING RULEMAKING DOCKET**  Employ ment and Training Administration/Office of Apprenticeship , Department of Labor **TITLE OF RULE** Apprenticeship Programs; Equal Employ ment Opportunity , RI N 1205

- AB59 **STAGE OF RULEMAKING** Notice of Proposed Rulemaking I ssued, Comment Period Open

**DATE OF DISCUSSION** January 19 , 2016 **NATURE OF DISCUSSION**
PHONE



## __ MEETI

NG



## __ EMAIL __

X

___ 

### Party(ies)/Title(s)/Organization(s) Present or Represented **NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION**  Lauren Williams Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.



### Department of Labor Representatives Participating **NAME TITLE**  Adele Gagliar di Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research , ETA 

### Description of Factual Materials or Information Presented Outside p arties sent an email messa ge with a request for clarification about applicability of regulatory provisions to registered apprenticeship sponsors with five or more apprentices and to registered apprenticeship sponsors regardless of size. The Department provided an email directing the outside parties to the preamble discussions of Proposed § 30.3, Equal Opportunity

Standards Applicable to All Sponsors, and to Proposed § 30.4, Affirmative Action Programs, on pages 68917

– 68921 of Federal Register of November 6, 2015 [ 80 FR 68907 ].
#### GLUCKSTERN *v.*NEW YORK.

No. 564, Misc.

Decided November 5, 1962.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.