alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.(a).2**
I, Alan Gelman, certify that:
(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Partner CommunicationsCompany Ltd.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company andhave:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
(5) The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

Date: April 30, 2004
/s/ ALAN GELMAN

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22

- 0322 IN THE MATTER OF: E.W., Respondent and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of c ounsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent and Appellant in this matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty ( 30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender Division’s Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Respondent and Appellant at h er last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2023

07/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0322
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel on January 3, 2006, which the court has noted 1

appears on the face of it to be untimely, but the undersigned does not herein as yet make an order

on that motion. See Order, filed on January 13, 2006.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-1164 FCD GGH P

vs.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ December 13, 2005 motion for summary

judgment. In light of the pending motion, the court now vacates the March 31, 2006 pretrial 1

conference and June 20, 2006 jury trial dates set in the July 15, 2006 scheduling order. This

relieves the parties of any obligation to file pretrial statements at this time. The dates for the

pretrial conference and jury trial will be re-set, if appropriate, upon adjudication of the pending

dispositive motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/4/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009 - edwa1164 .vac

Case 2:04-cv-01164-FCD-GGH Document 30 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** Annual report on the implementation ofOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 and P.L. 104-113

1997, 1998,

 
SuDoc:C 13.58/14:
Item Number:0247-D-16 (online)
CGP system Number:000557010
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v NOLBERTO VASQUEZ, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 129, 42 CMR 321

No. 23,289

November 6, 1970

*Captain Harry N. Lembeck,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

We affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review. United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date.

Judge DARden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in *Palos,*supra.
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



I, Christopher Valleau, Chief Financial Officer of Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



/s/    CHRISTOPHER VALLEAUChristopher Valleau Chief Financial Officer
May 20, 2004
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30,
2007 (the Report) 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: September 25, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern   
|                         |  | Michael D. Stern       
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                         | 
|Date: September 25, 2007 |  | /s/ Edward A. Stern    
|                         |  | Edward A. Stern        
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Before the Third Division,

December 23, 1953

No. 57716.

#### Pacific Dry Goods Company *v.*United States,

protest 165032-K (San Francisco).

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a protest against the collector’s assessment of duty on wooden boxes imported from Japan on March 30 and October 3, 1949, as smokers’ articles, at 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1552 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802. It is claimed that the merchandise is properly dutiable as manufactures of wood, at 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, and the President’s proclamation of April 22, 1948, T. D. 51898. The claims are limited to the items designated on the invoices as HW 70, in cases numbered 133, 134, and 135 of entry No. 2453, and in cases numbered 16 and 17 of entry No. 5697.

At the trial, George B. Parks, examiner at the port of San Francisco, testified that he is familiar with the merchandise covered by this protest and that it is composed of wood. A representative sample was received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 1. It consists of a decorated wooden box about 6 inches long, *3%*inches wide, and 2% inches deep. It cannot readily be opened as various interlocking segments on the ends, and the, top must be moved in turn to do so.

The witness testified that he became familiar with the uses of such boxes by inquiry in the trade and that they are sold as trick boxes, not as cigarette boxes. He said that they are too complicated to open for use as smokers’ articles, since many moves are required, whereas an ordinary cigarette box is just opened at the top.

On cross-examination, Mr. Parks testified that he had examined the merchandise in question and was then of the opinion that the boxes were smokers’ articles, but that he had changed his view after inquiry in the trade and is now satisfied that they are not, but are just trick boxes. He stated further that such merchandise is now and has been for 2 years classified as manufactures of wood.

On the record presented, we hold that the boxes herein are not smokers’ articles, but are manufactures of wood, dutiable at 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, and the President’s proclamation of April 22, 1948, T. D. 51898.

The protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74778-74779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31004]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of scheduled meetings is published pursuant to 
the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-
409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIMES AND DATES: The Commission has scheduled meetings for the 
following dates:

December 5, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
December 20, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
January 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 
Conference Center (Room 1300).

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission has scheduled these meetings 
to consider various rulemaking matters, including the issuance of 
proposed rules and the approval of final rules. The Commission may also 
consider and vote on dates and times for future meetings. The agenda 
for the December 5, 2011 meeting was posted on the Commission's Web 
site at http://www.cftc.gov seven (7) days prior to the meeting. The 
agenda for the December 20, 2011 meeting will be made available to the 
public and posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov 
at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. In the event that the 
times or dates of the meetings

[[Page 74779]]

change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and 
place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 
Commission, (202) 418-5071.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-31004 Filed 11-29-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/1/2023 1

Pro Se Effort to Enjoin a Mayoral Election 

Brown v. Glynn County Board of Elections and Voter 

Registration (Anthony A. Alaimo, S.D. Ga. 2:05-cv-218) 

Late on the Friday afternoon before the 2005 general election, a 

would-be candidate for mayor filed a pro se complaint in federal 

court seeking to reschedule a mayoral election so that she could be 

included on the ballot; she had been disqualified for not being a resident long enough. The district judge had already left for the weekend, but he heard the case on Monday afternoon. He denied the 

plaintiff a new election but ordered the county to preserve and tally 

all write-in ballots. The plaintiff did not prevail in the election. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

enjoining elections; pro se party; write-in candidate. 

At approximately 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 4, 2005, a would-be candidate for mayor of Brunswick filed a pro se federal complaint in the Southern 

District of Georgia seeking a rescheduled mayoral election with herself on 

the ballot.1 She also styled her complaint as a motion for a temporary restraining order and a notice of removal of a state-court case in which the 

court had ruled against her.2 The state court had affirmed a ruling by the 

county’s board of elections that she had not been a resident of Brunswick for 

long enough to be mayor.3

Judge Anthony A. Alaimo had already left for the weekend when the 

complaint arrived.4

 On Monday afternoon, he heard the case and denied the 

plaintiff a new election.5

 He granted her an order requiring the county to 

preserve and tally all write-in ballots.6

The plaintiff did not prevail in the election.7 Judge Alaimo approved a 

voluntary dismissal of the case on April 18, 2006.8

1. Complaint, Brown v. Glynn Cty. Bd. of Elections & Voter Registration, No. 2:05-cv218 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2005), D.E. 1; Injunction Order at 1, id. (Nov. 8, 2005), D.E. 7. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. Complaint Attachments, Brown, No. 2:05-cv-218 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2005), D.E. 1. 

4. Injunction Order, supra note 1, at 1; Transcript at 2, Brown, No. 2:05-cv-218 (S.D. Ga. 

Nov. 7, 2005, filed Nov. 17, 2005), D.E. 8. 

Judge Alaimo died on December 30, 2009. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Injunction Order, supra note 1, at 2; Transcript, supra note 4; Minutes, Brown, No. 

2:05-cv-218 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2005), D.E. 6. 

6. Injunction Order, supra note 1, at 2–3; Transcript, supra note 4, at 3–4; see Saeed Ahmed, Ex-Black Panther Wins Ruling on Write-In Votes, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 8, 2005, at B5. 

7. See Across Georgia, Augusta Chron., Nov. 20, 2005, at B3. 

8. Dismissal, Brown, No. 2:05-cv-218 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2006), D.E. 17.
No. 44021.

#### Protest 992977-G of Alfred Hahnenstein (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

I, Philip Kives, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of K-tel International, Inc.;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  September18, 2006
|        | /s/ Philip Kives                       |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Philip Kives                           |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 55950.

protests 151665-K, etc. (New York).

#### J & H Baer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
Before the Third Division,

April 24, 1958

No. 61864.

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

protests 266172-K and 292559-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60839.

#### Wool Distributing Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 272652-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SCOTT GILLIAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1988 LKK DAD P

vs.

WARDEN D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 14, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01988-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 14, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

DATED: January 30, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/gill1988.804

Case 2:04-cv-01988-LKK -DAD Document 8 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 47354.

#### Protest 77209-K of Nippon Dry Goods Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Counsel for defendant conceding the correctness of the plaintiff’s claim, the protest was sustained accordingly.