alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     8-K required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-081
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 8-K for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
No. 52407.

protests 118938-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Close & Stewart *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
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

 

I, Johannes T. Petersen, President, Secretary and Treasurer of SOM Resources Inc., hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of SOM Resources Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2006 (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 SOM Resources Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Dated: August 4, 2006 |   |                     |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                  |   |                     |
|                  |   |                     |
|                  |   | /s/ Johannes T. Petersen |   |  
 

 

Johannes T. Petersen

 

 

President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director

 

 

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

SOM Resources Inc.

 

 

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

 

 

 

  |
1 

### Seltzer, Mark

From: Lewis, Paul

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:01 PM

To: 'pdeleo@cleaninginstitute.org'; 'chr is.york@bluestarsilicones.com';

'kathy.plotzke@dowcorning.com'; 'russell.mait @evonik.com'; 'lisa.dumars@momentive.com';

'krowkaj@personalcarecouncil.org'; 'jhamur o@shinetsua.com'; 'doyle@khlaw.com';

'jack.linard@unilever.com'; 'hugh.flack@ wacker.com'; 'cfinley@nacwa.org';

'Karluss_Thomas@americanchemistry.com'

Cc: Penberthy, Ward; Seltzer, Mark

Subject: Siloxanes ECA- Initiation of 30 Day Comment Period for Interested Parties

Attachments: 12-18-13 Siloxanes Draft ECA for 30 Day Comm ent [Compare with 11-22 Version].docx;

12-18-13 Siloxanes Draft ECA for 30 Day Comment [clean].docx

Importance: High

Dear Siloxane ECA Interested Parties:

Thank you for attending the public meeting this past Thursday, December 12th. Attached is a revised draft D4

Enforceable Consent Agreement (ECA) and a copy of the draft with mark

‐ ups based on discussion during the meeting.

EPA has concluded that the draft is likely to achieve final agreement (i.e. there likely is a consensus among EPA,

manufacturers and/or processors that will conduct the testing and all other interested parties). The next step in the ECA

development process is a 30 day period for interested parties to submit comments or written objections. This 30 day

comment period begins today. We are aware that the ECA signature section (XXVII. SIGNATURES) still has blanks for the

company agent’s and their titles and we will be adding that information in the final document.

Comments and objections must be submitted to the agency no later than January 21, 2014. EPA may reject objections

where the Agency concludes the objections: (A) Are not made in good faith; (B) Are untimely; (C) Do not involve the

adequacy of the proposed testing program or other features of the agreement that may affect EPA’s ability to fulfill the

goals and purposes of TSCA; or (D) Are not accompanied by a specific explanation of the grounds on which the draft

agreement is considered objectionable. The regulations in 40 CFR 790.5(a) provide formal procedures for submitting

comments or objections. EPA kindly asks submitters to also email any submission to seltzer.mark@epa.gov in order to

expedite review and conclusion of this process.

Assuming that consensus continues to exist after the close of the comment period, the draft ECA will then be circulated

to EPA management and the parties that are to conduct or sponsor testing for final approval and signature. After final

agreement and signature, EPA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the consent

agreement.

The current ECA negotiation period will be extended from December 26, 2013 for 60 days to February 24, 2013 to

facilitate comments and the signature process.

Regards,

Paul Lewis

Paul Lewis, Ph.D.

Chief, Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

USEPA

202 564 67382
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                            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 of Neose Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A.
Brian Davis, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ A. Brian Davis

A. Brian Davis
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


August 13, 2002
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                           AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,              QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30,
                                               -------------------------              ----------------------
                                               1997                1996                1997                1996
                                            ----------         -----------          ----------         -----------

<S>                                         <C>                <C>                  <C>                <C>         
Net income (loss) attributable to
   common shares                            $  997,000         ($4,879,000)         $  547,000         ($5,254,000)
                                            ==========         ===========          ==========         ===========





Weighted average common shares outstanding   3,448,000           3,051,000           3,486,000           3,220,000

Common stock equivalents                       154,000                --               159,000                --
                                            ----------         -----------          ----------         -----------

Total weighted average common and
   common equivalent shares                  3,602,000           3,051,000           3,645,000           3,220,000
                                            ==========         ===========          ==========         ===========

Net income (loss) per common and
   common equivalent share                  $     0.28         ($     1.60)         $     0.15         ($     1.63)
                                            ==========         ===========          ==========         ===========
</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 3, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00108

- CV

Luminant Energy Company LLC , Appellant

v.

Public Utility Commission of Texas , Appellee

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TE XAS

PROJECT NO. 51812

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTI CES KELLY AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is a direct appeal from p roject number 51812 of the Public Utility Commission of Texas

.

Luminant Energy Company LLC has filed a n unopposed joint motion to dismiss the appeal, and

having considered the motion , the Court agrees that the motion should be granted . Therefore, the

Court grants the motion and dismiss es the a ppeal

. The appe llant shall pay all costs relating to

this appeal

.
No. 66153.

#### Chain Bike Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 313669-KS, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.a

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the use of our report dated February 25, 2000 included herein
and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus
and the Registration Statement on Form SB-1.


/s/
Harper and Pearson Company, P.C.
Houston, Texas
March 16, 2000
No. 55735.

protest 478266-G/79178 (Chicago).

#### Taiyo Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Prom an examination of the papers in the case the ■court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7531
G. GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusGEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; M. SPRADLING, Treatment Programs Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-662-R) Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Deeds , No. CA-97-662-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Befoeb Chief Judge Rao,

March 6, 1967

No. R67/48.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisements R60/5281 and R60/8675 (Chicago).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Kurt Orban Oom-pany, Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the galvanized steel wire in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, net packed, exclusive of inland freight and f.o.b. charges.
# Official Journal L 262/7 Oc

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 262 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 487 October 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 262

English edition

Legislation

Volume 487 October 2005

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | European Parliament |
| | * | Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom) | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

European Parliament

*

Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Before the First Division,

December 22, 1947

No. 52076.

protests 86026-K, etc. (San Francisco and Seattle).

#### China Importing Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6283
STEPHEN D. PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; INDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MEYERS; NURSE GLOWAKI, L.P.N.; K. V. MCWATERS, Head Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-96-967-2) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 10, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen D. Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Acting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994), the district court ordered Appellant to exhaustadministrative remedies, to advise the court within the time allotted by statute of the result of the administrative proceedings, and warned Appellant that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the action. Appellant failed to comply with this order, and the district c ourt dismissed the case without prejudice upon expiration of the allowed period.The district court could properly require exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when Appellant failed to comply with itsorder was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 10, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00522

- CV

Dionisio G. TORRES d/b/a Torres Design & Construction, Torres Design & Construction, Inc.,

and Torres Construction,

Appellant s

v.

Leticia HAYNES,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVF001094

- D1

Hon orable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion

, Justice

Marialyn Barnard , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The appellant’s “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Sanctions and A Reply to

Appellee’s Response” is GRANTED

. T he appellant’s mo tion for s anctions is DENIED.

____________________ ____________________ __ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 10th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Before the Third Division,

December 5, 1962

No. 67243.

protests 61/4985, 61/4986, and 61/4987 (Seattle).

#### National Silver Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 69366.

#### N.Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/22919 and 64/23934 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 351), and that the merchandise reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained to the extent that duties were assessed upon quantities of merchandise in excess of that which was imported.
No. 66156.

#### Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29366 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
September 1, 1954

No. 58359.

protests 220617-K and 220624-K.

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States,

Protests abandoned July 22, 1954. (Not published.) (Initial No. 194431-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 31Certification of DisclosureI, Mike L. Wilhelms, Chief Financial Officer at Triad Financial Corporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Triad Automobile Receivables Trust 2005-B; 2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing agreement for inclusion in thesereports is included in these reports; 4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling andservicing agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review requiredunder the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, theservicer has fulfilled its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and 5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance withthe minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent publicaccountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single AttestationProgram for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicingagreement that is included in these reports.      Triad Financial Corporation
Befóse Chief Judge Rao,

May 23, 1967

No. R67/76.

#### Lollytogs, Ltd. *v.*United States,

reappraisements R60/20457 and R60/20459 (New York).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Reap. Dec. 11073), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise (children’s clothing) and that such values are the invoice unit f.o.b. values, net packed, exclusive of any additional charges or commissions.