alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit  31

                  CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

     I,  Alan  Irwin,  Chief  Executive Officer, I, Lorna Irwin, Chief Financial
Officer  of  Crown International Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Registrant"),
certify  that:

     1.     We  have  reviewed  this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2004, of the Registrant (the "Report").

     2.     Based  on  our  knowledge,  the  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 the Report.

     3.     Based  on  our  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other
financial  information  included  in  the 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 the Report.

     We are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14) for the
Registrant  and  we  have:
a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls and procedures 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  the  Report  is  being  prepared.
b)   evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  as  of  a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the Report
(the  "Evaluation  Date");  and
c)   presented  in  the  Report  our  conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

     We have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's
auditors  and  the  Audit  Committee  of  the  Registrant's  Board of Directors:
a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design  or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  Registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have  identified for the
Registrant''  auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  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.

     We  have  indicated  in  the  Report  whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal  controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of  our  most  recent evaluation,
including  any  corrective  actions  with regard to significant deficiencies and
material  weaknesses.


DATED:         13  July,  2004

               By:  /s/  Alan  Irwin             By:  /s/  Lorna  Irwin
               ------------------------------    -------------------------------
               Chief  Executive  Officer         Chief  Financial Officer


<PAGE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1167 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NE-36 response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP03369EN-E

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP03369EN-E

ASE Printed Name: Frederick Zink Date

Branch Manager Date
Case No. 13,063.

#### SMITH v. HUNTER.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 467.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1838.

Personal Property — Deed — Possession—Creditors.

A deed, from one to another, of personal property, to be void if the grantor shall on demand pay a certain sum to the grantee, is void, in law, as to the creditors of the grantor, unless the possession accompanied and followed the-deed, although acknowledged and recorded agreeably to Act Md. 1729, c. 8, §§ 5, 6.

Replevin, for a hackney-coach and two horses, taken by the defendant [Alexander Hunter] as marshal of the District of Columbia. under a fieri facias against one William Smith, the brother of the plaintiff [John Smith], Plea, property in the defendant, and traversing the title of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed title under a deed from the said William Smith, dated May 21, 1833, duly acknowledged and recorded on the same day, agreeably to Act Md, 1729, c. 8, §§ 5, 6. The consideration was stated to be $333; and the deed was-to be void if William should pay the said sum and interest to John on demand. John lived in Annapolis, William in Washington, and the carriage and horses always remained in the possession of William, until seized as his property by the marshal under an execution against William.

Messrs. Brent & Brent, for plaintiff,

contended, that-as the deed was duly acknowledged and recorded agreeably to Act Md. *5751729, c. S, §§ 6, 6, it was not necessary that the possession should accompany and follow the deed, in order to protect the property from creditors; the acknowledgment and record being substituted for possession.

But THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contra), at the prayer of Mr. Mar-bury, for defendant, instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the possession of the property did not accompany and follow the deed, it was fraudulent, in law, as to the creditors of the said William Smith, although acknowledged and recorded agreeably to the act.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

observed, that it did not appear to have been the intention of the legislature to make valid against creditors any deed which would be void, as to creditors, by the common law.

A motion for a new trial was made, but was refused at November term, 1838.

NOTE. On the 7th of July, 1838 [5 Stat. 306), congress established a criminal court for the District of Columbia, Thompson F. Mason, Esq., of Alexandria, was appointed judge of that court, and held one session in Alexandria, and one in Washington, but was too ill to hold the December session in Washington, and died on the 21st of December, 1838. James Dunlop, Esq., of Georgetown, was appointed in his place, and sworn in about the 9th of January, 1839.
No. 54497.

#### J. J. Distributing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 137200-K (B) (Galveston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-23-052]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE: 

November 3, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        1.                         *Agendas for future meetings:*                         none.                    

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Commission vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-472 (Fifth Review) (Silicon Metal from China). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on November 14, 2023.

                        5.                         *Outstanding action jackets:*                         none.                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.

The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: October 27, 2023.

Sharon Bellamy,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-24073 Filed 10-27-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MALEAKE THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-93-36-H, CA-95-131-H)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maleake Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Thomas, Nos.

CR-93-36-H; CA-95-131-H (E.D.N.C., Feb. 1, 1996). 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
---

|**Exhibit 32.2**                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|**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 this report of Alternet Systems. (the “Company”) on Form 10 KSB/A  No. 3 for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report”), I, Patrick Fitzsimmons, certify, pursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted),  that:

| | 1. | The  Report on Form 10 KSB / A No.3 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 at the end of  the periods covered by the Report.

|Dated: September 8, 2008 | By: | /s/
      Patrick Fitzsimmons
|------------------------ | --- | -----------------------------
|                         |     | Patrick Fitzsimmons          
|                         |     | Principal Financial Officer  

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONYELL PADDY

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, LOUIS S. FOLINO, 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE 

COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 03-5312

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the petition for writ

of habeas corpus (paper no. 1), the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Thomas J.

Rueter, Chief United States Magistrate Judge (paper no. 39), petitioner’s objections to the Report

and Recommendation (paper no. 50), and all other relevant papers in the record, for the reasons

set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

4. Because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, there is no basis for issuing a certificate of appealability.

 /s/ Norma L. Shapiro 

 J.
Exhibit 99.01


                            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 of Montgomery Realty Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dinesh Maniar Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


/s/ Dinesh Maniar
Dinesh Maniar
Chief Executive Officer
May 9, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit13.1**

 

**AnnualCertification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officersof Crucell N.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated: December 7, 2007 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    | By:    | /s/ Ronald H.P. Brus |   |
|                    |   | Name:  Ronald H.P. Brus |
|                    |   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
| Dated: December 7, 2007 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    | By:    | /s/ Leonard Kruimer |   |
|                    |   | Name:  Leonard Kruimer |
|                    |   | Title:  Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |        |  |  |  |

 

----
No. 61236.

protests 167889-K, etc. (New York).

#### Weil Ceramics & Glass, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, and the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), for “Works of art * * * statuary, sculptures, or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $2.50.”
Before the Third Division,

February 17, 1954

No. 57870.

protests 173559-K and 173560-K (Los Angeles).

#### Lou Bunin Productions, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

These two cases relate to and cover the same entry. At the hearing held in Los Angeles, Calif., they were ordered consolidated.

An examination of the record in each ease discloses that the duties have not been paid. Payment of duties is a condition precedent to the right to file protest. *Sucrest Corporation*v. *United States,*31 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 220, C. A. D. 275; *Central Commodities Corp.*v. *United States,*6 Cust. Ct. 452, C. D. 514. The motion of the Government to dismiss the protests is, therefore, granted.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________________________________

:

WILLIAM HOUSTON, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

:

 v. : No. 03-3494

:

EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, :

:

Defendant. :

___________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2009, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Waiver of Jury

Trial (Dkt. No. 85), Defendant’s Answer and Brief in Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. Nos. 86, 87), and Plaintiff’s Reply

to Defendant’s Answer (Dkt. No. 89), consistent with the

accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

Motion is GRANTED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Henry S. Perkin 

HENRY S. PERKIN

United States Magistrate Judge
No. 51590.

#### Protests 45095-K, etc., of Colonial Bead Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020) and *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867). In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      March 31, 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 the
      Company.

Dated: May 15, 2006

                         /s/ Scott D. Dorfman
                         ----------------------
                         Scott D. Dorfman
                         President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
                         Board
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

●

●

●
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:*                         November 9, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby                           ( print page 77373)                        gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 2, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 91 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-35, CP2024-35.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-24726 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P