alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



MARKETWATCH.COM, INC.



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of MarketWatch.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2004 (the Report), I, Lawrence S. Kramer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 dates and for the periods indicated therein.



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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                   |  |                                            
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2004
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/    Lawrence S. Kramer                  
|                   |  |                                            
|                   |  | Lawrence S. Kramer, Chief Executive Officer
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1428EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Domingo Jesse Campos, also known as * Edwin Diaz Mojica, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: September 21, 1998

Filed: September 30, 1998

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
After two inconclusive trials, a third jury convicted Domingo Jesse Campos of several cocaine-related offenses. The Government called a number of witnesses t o support its burden, including Campos’s friend , Eva Garcia, and abundantly established Campos’s considerable cocaine-d ealing activity. Garcia testified to what she saw and what Campos told her about his cocaine-related activity. Campos contends he wa s prejudiced by Garcia’s testimony because he did not know the Government intended to call her as a witness. Campos concede s the Government was not obligated to make a pretrial disclosure of its witnesses. See United States v. Porter , 850 F.2d 464, 465-2-

(8th Cir . 1988). After reviewing the record, we are satisfied the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Garcia to testify. Campos lived with Garcia before his arrest, th e district court allowed Campos’s counsel to interview Garcia before she testified, and Campos does he suggest he would have tried the case differently knowing that Garcia was a witness. See id. Also, when Campos testified, he did little t o contradict Garcia’s version of his dr ug-dealing activity, and his tactical decision not to move for a continuance shows that he was not surprised by Garcia’s addition as a Government

witness. See United States v. French , 12 F.3d 114, 117 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Krohn , 558 F.2d 390, 394 (8th Cir. 1977). Campos further contends Garcia is his common-law wife and her testimony violates the marital privilege. We disagree. The record shows Garcia was merely one of Cam pos’s live-in female friends and nothing more. Because Campos failed to raise the marital-privilege issue in th e district court, we review for plain error and find none. See United States v. Zerba , 21 F.3d 250, 253 (8th Cir. 1994). Finally, contrary to Campos’s contention, the district co urt did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence that cocaine wa s discovered in Campos’s clothing on the first day of his trial. See United States v

. Logan , 121 F.3d 1172, 1178 (8th Cir. 1997). We affirm Campos’s convictions. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 31.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James Dyas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

   (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

   (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

   (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2005                   By: /s/ James Dyas
                                       James Dyas, Director and
                                       Principle Financial Officer
EX-32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



INFe- HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. 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 INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Rudy,Principal Financial Officer of INFe- Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 INFe-Human Resources, Inc.



/s/    JOHN RUDY

- --------------------

John Rudy



Chief Financial Officer

July 21, 2008
p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0450 0451

Focus Ready Draft 7/26/2012

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ AG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p120450c.eng

 

 

SAT (concerns) (07/17/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs:

. //

 Human Health Related Cases: 

Migration to groundwater: Rapid

PBT rating: P3B2T2 PMN: Health 2 / Eco 3 //

Incineration/degradation product: Health 2 //

Incomplete incineration products: Eco 3 // PMN: P2B2T2

/ Deg Pdt: P3B2T2

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 29 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also a potential reproductive toxicant. The replacement

Page 3
p120450c.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0450 0451

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 5
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0450 0451

Page 6
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 7
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0450 0451

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 9
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 10
p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0450 0451

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 11
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 12
p120450c.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 13

p120450c.eng

 

 

Page 15
Southern Star Central Corp.

Southern Star Central Gas PIpeline, Inc.

4700 Highway 56

Owensboro, KY 42301



May 10, 2010



Daryl R. Johnson

3288 Buckland Square, Apt. B

Owensboro, KY 42301



Dear Daryl:



This letter is being presented for your consideration as respects the current Employment Agreement Agreement between Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (SSCGP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Star Central Corp. (Company) and you, Daryl R. Johnson, named Executive dated August 11, 2005, as amended January 1, 2009.



Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the original Agreement, dated August 11, 2005, language provides for its expiration concurrent with the fifth anniversary from that date, or August 11, 2010. SSCGP and Company desire to extend said Agreement until December 31, 2010.  The Agreement will expire at midnight December 31, 2010 without prior notice being required of either SSCGP and Company, or Executive.



SSCGP and Company will be in the process of reviewing potential employment terms of all SSCGP Officers beyond that date.



If the above terms are acceptable to you, please execute in the space provided below and return to Rob Carlton, Vice President, Human Resources by close of business May 13, 2010.  Otherwise, the existing Agreement terminates on August 11, 2010.



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL CORP.



/s/ Beverly H. Griffith

Beverly H. Griffith



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC



/s/ Robert W. Carlton

Robert W. Carlton

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:



/s/ Daryl R. Johnson

Daryl R. Johnson

Date:  5/11/2010



# Endnotes





Exhibit 10.35
Before the Second Division,

December 16, 1958

No. 62608.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 323190-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of cameras, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
K18-2-310.01. Re,llorting 2eqeirements 

A. The owner or onerator of anv source shall ieport to the Director anv emissions in excess of the limits establislied bv tnis 

Chanter or the apnitcable permit The report shall be in 2 parts as snecified below 

I. Notification bv telenhone or facsimile within 24 hours of the time the owner or operator first learned of the occur 

rence of excess emissions that includes all avatlable tnformation from subsection (B) 

2. Detailed written notification bv submission of an excess emissions reaort within 72 hours of the notification under 

subsection (11. 

~ The excess emissions report shall contain the following information• 

1. The identitv of each stack or other emission point where the excess emissions occurred 

2. The magnttude of the excess emissions exoressed in the units of the applicable emission limitation and the operating 

data and calculattons used in determintngthe magnitude of the excess emissions 

3. The time and duration or exnected duration of the excess emis ions 

4. The identity of the eyuipment from which the excess emissions emanated: 

5. The nature and cause of the emissions 

6. The steps taken if the excess emissions were the result of a malfiinction to remedv the malfuncti on andthe stens 

taken or planned to prevent the recurrence of the malfunctions: 

7. The steps that were or are being taken to limit the excess emissions: and 

8. If the source's permit containsTrocedures eoverning source operation durine periods of s tartup or malfunction and 

the excess em issions resulted from startup or malfunction a 1 st _t of the steps taken to complv with the permit nrocedures. 

C. In the case of continuous or recurring excess emissions the notifi ation re uirements gf this Section shall be satisfied if 

the source 12ro vides the required notification after excess emissions are first detected an d includes in the_ notification an 

estimate of the time the excess emissions will continue Excess emtssions occurrine after the estimated time period or 

changes in the nature of the emissions as ori ig nallv aeported shall reauire additional notification pursuant to subsections 

(A) and (B).
Before the Second Division,

October 31, 1951

No. 55956.

petition 6828-R (Ogdensburg).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It appeared from the testimony that the merchandise-' was entered on October 24, 1950, at the invoice values, such action being predicated upon price lists received from the exporter and filed with the appraiser. Subsequently, petitioner received a new price list showing higher prices, effective-October 16, 1950, which petitioner also filed with the appraiser. Petitioner intended to amend the entry to conform to the new prices, but the appraisement *341had been made, and the amendment was not filed. Upon the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Case No. 15,066.

#### UNITED STATES v. The EXPRESS. SAME v. TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY BUNDLES OF CIGARS.

[21 Law Rep. 41.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1858.

•Customs Duties — Discharge oe Goods — Manifest—Post Entry.

Discharge of cargo into lighters not an unloading under the statute. After such discharge, by general order, consignee should be allowed to make a post entry of goods not on the manifest.

Proceedings to forfeit vessels and cigars on the ground that the cigars, exceeding $400 In value, were unloaded from the vessel without any permit from the collector, contrary to the fiftieth section of the collection act of March 2, 1799 [1 Stat 665]. The facts were, that when the vessel arrived she was detained at quarantine, and her cargo was ordered to be discharged into lighters—some cigars under special permit, and the rest of the cargo under a general order. All the •cargo of the vessel.was thus discharged from the Express into lighters, under the inspection of custom house officers, and brought *to this city; but before it was landed, the •consignees, discovering that the cigars in ■question were not upon the manifest, applied to the collector to make a post entry of them.

Held, that upon the facts in evidence the •act of removing the cargo into lighters was not an unloading and delivery of them from the barque, coming reasonably within the purview of the prohibition of the statute (1 Stat. 665, § 50), the separation from the vessel not taking them from her charge and control (U. S. v. Smith [Case No. 16,343]). That what was done in respect to these cigars, fairly falls within the scope of the authorization of the general order issued to the consignee. The informations dismissed, and ves.sel and cigars ordered to be discharged.
Before the Second Division,

November 23, 1960

No. 64921.

#### Laral Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/29990 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been denied a request to change his name. He

brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and under

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 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. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. On August 23, 2006, the magistrate

judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied and that defendant’s motion be granted. 

Upon review of the findings and recommendations, as well as plaintiff’s objections to the same,

the court adopts the recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion but declines to adopt the

recommendation to grant defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment with respect to his First Amendment and RLUIPA

claims. However, he failed to meet his initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 68 Filed 09/28/06 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

genuine issue of material fact. Specifically, in order to establish a free exercise violation, a

plaintiff must show that the conduct barred by defendant is “mandated” by his faith. Freeman v.

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9 Cir. 1997). Plaintiff only submitted his unsworn statement, th

contained in his motion, regarding this issue, rather than a sworn declaration. Moreover, the

statement was ambiguous and stated that “a change of name accompanies a change in character”

but did not indicate whether a name change was required in this circumstance. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.

Nevertheless, defendant did not move for summary judgment with respect to the issue of

whether plaintiff’s faith mandated a name change. Rather, defendant only moved for summary

judgment on grounds of mootness, which should be denied. Merely because plaintiff failed to

meet his initial burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that his faith mandated a name

change does not mean that defendant would have prevailed in a cross-motion on the same issue. 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.

The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 28, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 68 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1  RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION  I, John R. Signorello, certify that:
  1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 of IceWEB, Inc.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  a.           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.           Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions after the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c.           Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  5.           The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a.           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b.           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  December 26, 2007
  By:/s/ John R. Signorello John R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer