alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification**     I, Robert J. Messey, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved.]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.                                                       /s/ Robert J. Messey   Robert J. Messey   Vice President   Date: November 13, 2007
Before the Third Division,

February 11, 1944

No. 49200.

#### Protests 37834-K, etc., of Saks *&*Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
Case No. 13,193.

#### SOUTHWESTERN R. R. BANK v. PARSONS et al.

[Cited in Hugh v. McRae, Case No. 6,840. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
446 A.2d 674

#### In The Matter Of Carlene Sherwood, a minor. Appeal of Barbara Sherwood.

Argued March 20, 1980.

Robert Sarno, for appellant; Gerald W. Seevers, for appellee.

Before PRICE, CAVANAUGH and WATKINS, JJ.

Order affirmed.
Before the First Division,

May 13, 1953

No. 57316.

protests 93663-K and 90320-K (New York).

#### Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc., and Quong Yee Wo *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of amber figures and other articles composed of synthetic resin similar in all material respects to the synthetic resin articles the subject of Abstract 56967, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained. •
July 10, 1939

No. 41816.

Suit 4190.

#### Henry *Pels & Co.*v. *United States.*

T. D. 49540 affirmed.
Case No. 8,800.

#### MORGAN v. EVANS.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 70.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1813.

Pleading at Law — Statute op Limitations — Issuable Plea — When to be Pleaded.

The defendant has a right to plead the statute of limitations, at the first term after office judgment; it being an issuable plea.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant, at the last term, which was the first term after office judgment, moved to plead the statute of

*749limitations, and cited the 28th section of the Virginia statute - of 12th December, 1792, which enacts that an office judgment may he set aside if the defendant, “at the succeeding court, shall plead to issue immediately.’’ Downman y. Downman’s Ex’rs, 1 Wash. [Va.] 28; 1 Chit. PI. 505, 506; Ruck-er y. Hannay, 3 Term R. 124; Haddocks y. Holmes, 1 Bos. & P. 228; Willet y. Atterton, 1 W. Bl. 35, and Stadholme y. Hodgson, 2 Term R. 390.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Crunch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) having taken time to consider, admitted the plea, being of opinion that, as it was an issuable plea, and offered at the first term after office judgment, the court had no discretion.
Appendix 2 Data Distributions for Contaminants in Water 

and Sediment Samples in Response to the Deepwater Horizon 

Oil Spill, 2010

Appendix 2.1 Graphs Showing Data Distributions for Organic Contaminants in Water Sampled in Response to the 

Deepwater Horizon Spill, 2010 ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Appendix 2.2 Graphs Showing Data Distributions for Organic Contaminants in Whole Sediment Sampled in Response to 

the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 2010................................................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix 2.3 Graphs Showing Data Distributions for Trace and Major Elements, Nutrients, and Specific Conductance in 

Water Sampled in Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 2010......................................................................................... 147

Appendix 2.4 Graphs Showing Data Distributions for Trace and Major Elements in Whole Sediment Sampled in Response 

to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 165

Appendix 2.5 Graphs Showing Data Distributions for Trace and Major Elements in the Less Than 63-Micrometer Fraction 

of Sediment Sampled in Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 2010 .............................................................................. 183
This page intentionally left blank.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods presented in theReport.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 202 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| November  7, 2007 |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   |                    |   |
|                   | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|                   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |   |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
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

27

28

DISMISSAL Hodgson v .MBNA America Bank, N.A.

1 Case Number CIV-S-04-2436 GEB GGH

KEVIN P. WHITEFORD, CA State Bar No. 142916

SERLIN & WHITEFORD, LLP

813 F Street, 2nd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 446-0790

Facsimile: (916) 446-0791

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ERIC HODGSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ERIC HODGSON, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., 

Defendants.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-2436 GEB GGH

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH

PREJUDICE, WITH EACH PARTY

BEARING THEIR OWN ATTORNEY

FEES AND COSTS 

BEFORE: Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

Courtroom 10

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties to the entry of an order dismissing this action with

prejudice and with each party bearing their own attorney fees and costs, and good cause appearing

therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, and each

party shall bear their own attorney fees and court costs in this action. 

DATED: August 26, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02436-GEB-GGH Document 45 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 1
MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

This  modification of contract, entered into this the 12th day  of  December,
2000,  by  and  between Desert Health Products, Inc., an Arizona corporation,
with  its  principal headquarters located at 8221 East Evans Road Scottsdale,
Arizona  85260 (hereinafter referred to as DHPI) and Snore Formula, Inc.,  an
Arizona corporation, having its principal headquarters located at 4015  North
40th Place, Phoenix, Arizona 85018 (hereinafter referred to as Snore Formula)
collectively known as Parties.

      For  and  in  consideration of the mutual promises and benefits  to  be
derived by the parties, they do hereby agree to the following:

1.    The Parties entered into a Product Marketing and Distribution Agreement
  dated  May  11,  2000, a copy of which is attached to this Modification  of
  Contract and incorporated.

2.    Paragraph 1 under the agreement section shall include the names of  the
  following customers that will be excluded from DHPI's exclusivity:

          a)   Dr. Harold Katz
          b)   Hong Kong Trustful Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Hong Kong
          c)   Upafarma, Turkey
          d)   The Natural Health Company, United Kingdom
          e)   Capital Cliff Limited (Millennium Supplements), United Kingdom

3.    Paragraph  6  entitled  Requirement shall be amended  as  follows,  all
  requirement to purchase shall be deleted and/or forgiven and the price  per
  bottle  shall be changed to read as follows "after true cost of goods,  all
  profits shall be divided equally between Snore Formula and DHPI.

4.    Paragraph 5 entitled Term shall be in effect for one (1) year  but  the
  dates shall be changed to read January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001.

5.    All  other  terms and conditions of the original Product Marketing  and
  Distribution  Agreement  shall  remain in  full  force  and  effect.   This
  Modification of Contract binds all parties and successors.

The parties have signed this agreement on the date first above written.

DESERT HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.            SNORE FORMULA, INC.



By:__/s/ Johnny Shannon______           By:_/s/ Ron General______
     Johnny Shannon                     Ron General
     President                          President

WITNESS:

/s/ Thor Lindvagg
Thor Lindvagg
Exhibit 10.4


 


BACTERIN INTERNATIONAL EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN


 


RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT


 


This Agreement between
Bacterin International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and ________________ (the “Participant”) shall be
effective as of the date of grant. The Company and Participant agree as follows:


 


		1.	Grant of Restricted Stock. Participant is hereby granted Restricted Stock of the
Company pursuant to the Amended and Restated Bacterin International Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan"). This Agreement
is subject to and shall be construed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Plan, as now or hereinafter in effect.
Any terms which are used in this Agreement without being defined and which are defined in the Plan shall have the meaning specified
in the Plan.



 


		2.	Date of Grant. The date of the grant of the Restricted Stock is ______________.



 


		3.	Number and Price of Shares. The number of Shares of Restricted Stock granted is _________.
The Fair Market Value per Share on date of grant is $____.



 


		4.	Vesting. The Restricted Stock granted hereby shall become fully vested on ___________.



 


In order to be vested in Shares
of Restricted Stock in accordance with the schedule, the Participant must have been continuously serving as _____________ from
the Date of Grant until the vesting date.


 


Acceleration of Exercisability.
Upon a Change in Control of the Company, all Restricted Shares under this Agreement shall immediately be 100% vested without regard
to the vesting restrictions contained in this Restricted Stock Agreement.


 


		5.	Legends. Certificates representing vested Shares may contain such legends and transfer
restrictions as the Company shall deem reasonably necessary or desirable, including, without limitation, legends restricting transfer
of the Stock until there has been compliance with federal and state securities laws.



 


		6.	Receipt of Plan. By entering into this Agreement, Participant acknowledges (i) that
he or she has received and read a copy of the Plan and (ii) that this Agreement is subject to and shall be construed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Plan, as now or hereinafter in effect. By entering into this Agreement, Participant further
acknowledges that all grants under the Plan are determined by the Committee in its sole discretion and that nothing contained in
the Plan or in any grant under the Plan shall confer a right or entitlement to receive any further grants in the future.



 






    	Restricted Stock Agreement with _____	1



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company, by a duly authorized officer of the Company, and Participant have executed this Agreement, effective as of the date
of grant.


 


 





	 	BACTERIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	 
	 	Title: 	
	 	 	 
	 	Date: 	 
	 	 
	 	PARTICIPANT
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Date: 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Address:   	 
	 	 	 


 


 






    	Restricted Stock Agreement with _____	2
Opinion issued March 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00978-CR

———————————

WILLIAM HARRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 876384

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 25, 2014, appellant, William Harris, filed a motion to dismiss 

this appeal. No prior opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion and 

dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We dismiss any other pending 

motions as moot.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
(Reap. Dec. 8169)

#### American Express Co. John J Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 710820, etc.

(Decided October 21, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

When the merchandise covered by the appeals listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, was entered, the importer added an amount to cover a so-called Italian tax equal to an advance made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. It is the contention of plaintiffs that the proper dutiable export value of the involved artificial silk yarn is the entered value, less any amount added to cover the so-called Italian tax.

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the merchandise and issues involved in these appeals are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *American Express Co., John J. Ryan & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*28 Cust. Ct. 583, Reap. Dec. 8101, and that the record in that case may be incorporated as a part of the record herein. Counsel have also agreed that the appraised value of the involved merchandise, less the additions made by the importer on entry, is equal to the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no foreign value.

*487Accepting the above stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find the proper dutiable export value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value as entered, less any amount added by the importer to cover advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cheviot Financial Corp. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Linneman, President and 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 my knowledge:





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





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





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




/s/ Thomas J. LinnemanThomas J. LinnemanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 Date:  May 12, 2011
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1003 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SPACE COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Signed at Moscow October 3, 2007 

 

 and 

Agreement Extending the 

Agreement 

Signed at Moscow and Washington 

September 14 and October 19, 2011 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

 Space Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Moscow October 3, 2007; 

 Entered into force October 3, 2007. 

 And agreement extending the agreement. 

 Signed at Moscow and Washington 

 September 14 and October 19, 2011; 

 Entered into force October 19, 2011. 












Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Russian text of this Agreement. If the Russian text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
No. 41797.

#### Protest 635324-G of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Emery*v. *United States*(T. D. 46702) and *Myers*v. *United States*(T. D. 49530) it was held that the clapboards in question should have been assessed on the number of board feet found by taking the mean average of the thickness of the edges without deduction for planing under paragraph 401 and section 601 (c) (6), Revenue Act of 1932.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v DANNY L. DRAKE, Private U. S. Marine Corps, Appellee

21 USCMA 226, 44 CMR 280

No. 25,034

March 3, 1972

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGO, USN, and *Captain Donald B. Myers,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, United States.

*Captain R. O. Kellam,*JAGO, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, Accused.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Judge:

In United States v Weatherford, 19 USCMA 424, 426, 42 CMR 26 (1970), we indicated that in an unusual and special ease defense counsel can, at the express direction of the accused, “attempt to persuade the court-martial to impose no other punishment than a discharge.” On review of this case, the United States Navy Court of Military Review determined that, except for accused’s own statement that he was “tired of the Marine Corps” where “everybody . . . [told] you what to do,” there was “no reason” apparent in the record to “justify defense counsel’s argument for a bad conduct discharge.” Our reading of the record impels us to a different conclusion.

The accused had served creditably in Vietnam for eight months, and had no previous convictions. Before the offenses of which he was convicted, which consisted of a 25-day unauthorized absence, a five-day unauthorized absence, and a breach of restriction, he had a series of non judicial punishments. His last absence had been terminated by apprehension, and he testified that if restored to duty he would not serve but “leave again.” He had discussed his situation with his parents, and they “wanted” him to do what he thought would serve him best; and he believed “Just ... a BCD” would do that. The record convinces us that counsel’s argument constituted a plea for leniency and was in the accused’s best interest. United States v Richard, 21 USCMA 227, 44 CMR 281 (1972).

*227We answer in the negative the question certified by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, which asks whether the Court of Military Review was correct in its determination “that the argument of . [defense counsel] was prejudicial” to the accused. The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to it for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

Chief Judge DaRden and Judge Duncan concur.