alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Ronald B. Clark, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.; 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 included inthis 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 thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in 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 has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Date October 3, 2005         /s/ RONALD B. CLARK          Ronald B. Clark    Chief Executive Officer  
61
#### PIETRO LoROCCO, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

April 13, 1964. Denied.

See same case below: 82 *N. J. Super.*323.

*Messrs. Barbieri & Esposito*for the petitioners.

*Messrs.*Bowers, *Rinehart & Murphy*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
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

PAUL ANTHONY RUPE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2630 LKK DAD P

vs.

J.S.D. WOODWARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This action was closed on April 24, 2006. Plaintiff has filed an application

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis before the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. No prior ruling has been made by this court with respect to whether plaintiff

qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to

forward plaintiff’s application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit so that

a determination may be made on plaintiff’s application.

DATED: June 6, 2006.

DAD:4

rupe2630.fee

Case 2:04-cv-02630-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 50533.

#### Protests 54713-K, etc., of H. A. Caesar & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein, (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

April 23, 1945

No. 50137.

#### Protests 62823-K, etc., of J. J. Edel et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the classification of which was involved in Abstract 38647, which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the items of merchandise in question were held properly dutiable at 45 cents per pound and 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1308 as modified by T. D. 48316.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH J. McANDREWS, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

14 USCMA 327, 34 CMR 107

*328No. 17,220

December 20, 1963

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Captain Ronald L. Gainer,*and *First Lieutenant E. Pomeroy Williams*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Bruce C. Babbitt, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper,*and *First Lieutenant Barrie G. Sullivan, II,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm upon a fellow soldier, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 928. At the time of the offense, and at trial, he was seventeen years of age. In United States v Baker, 14 USCMA 311, 34 CMR 91, we held that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 USC § 5031, military personnel of the accused’s age are subject to trial and conviction by court-martial for offenses in violation of the Uniform Code.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
SERVED: JANUARY 31, 2011 

•H;ARTWENTO F 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S;^^',S5ppr^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' -'"chAnuNb 

WASHINGTON, DC , . -, -,0 

"•Gil Fiib •• 1 A 'I- 1>1 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SIEGEL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10WP0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-1217 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009WP700215) was forwarded to 

the Office of Hearings on January 26, 2011, and has been assigned to the undersigned. On 

January 24, 2011, Complainant's Counsel submitted a letter stating that the parties had reached a 

settlement, Respondent withdrew its request for hearing, and Complainant withdrew its 

complaint.' Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final 

order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Ji 

' The letter, received via facsimile on January 24, 2011, is not accompanied by a certificate of service, but 

is signed by Complainant's Counsel; includes the notation "Via Facsimile," followed by the Judge's name, address, 

and fax number; and indicates "cc," followed by Respondent's Counsel's name, address, and fax number. The rules 

require filing by personal delivery or mailing "to the appropriate address." 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(a), Parties must ensure that all submissions are properly filed with the Hearing Docket Clerk and serve a copy, with certificate of service, on the Judge. 
FAA Docket No. CP10WP0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Zachary J. Cohen, Respondent's Counsel 

Lesavoy Butz & Seitz, LLC 

7535 Windsor Drive, Suite 200 

Allentown, PA 18195 

TEL: 610-530-2700 

FAX: 610-530-2727 

Jeanine C. Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region, AEA-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3272 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

^ Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person iOfjby-#g>edi|ed<^\lrier, use the follpwin^^ Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S."^** I^wur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591,'Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
#### MICHAEL MONESSON *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. LYLIAN ALSOFROM *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

May 11, 1964. Denied.

See same case below: 82 *N. J. Super.*587.

*Mr. Walter P. A. Ensor, Jr.*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Gasseri, Murphy & Gasseri*for the respondents.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
(Reap. Dec. 10483)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 786127-1/6.

(Decided April 8, 1963)

*BrooJcs & Broolcs*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*441Wilson, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement on stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the tires and other articles, imported from Holland, here involved.

On the basis of the said stipulation, I find the export values of the merchandise identified on the invoices as follows to be the unit prices set forth in the last column, net, packed:

> Invoice No. 1

> Tires Per 100 tires

> 400 24 x 1.75 black $58.47

> 200 24 x 1.75 whitewall $79. 00

> Invoice No. 3

> 6,000 26 x 1.75 whitewall $79. 00

As to the remainder of the merchandise specified on invoice numbers 1 and 3, and the merchandise specified on invoice number 2,1 find the export values to be the invoice unit prices, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### AMEDO DE VIVO AND ELIZABETH DE VIVO, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. JOHNNY SIMPKSON, JR. AND EDITH ASKEN, A/K/A EDITH ASKEW, DEFENDANTS, AND JUNE STRELECKI, DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued January 8, 1968

Decided January 22, 1968.

*49
      *Mr. Michael D. Varbalow*for appellants *(Mr. Michael N. Kouvatas,*attorney).

*Mr. James J. Oasby, Jr.,*for respondent.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, where the following opinion was filed:

“Pee Cubiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their amended complaint against the Director of Motor Vehicles brought under the ‘hit and run’ section of the Motor Vehicle Act.

The record shows that following the accident the identity of the driver and the registered owner of the other vehicle were ascertained. Suit was originally commenced against these persons. However, attempted service upon them through the Director of Motor Vehicles failed because registered letters, sent to the addresses shown on the driver’s license and registration, enclosing copies of the summons and complaint were returned undelivered. See *Zander v. Martine,*66 *N. J. Super.*310 *(Cty. Ct.*1961). Diligent efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the named defendants proved fruitless.

*50About eleven months after the accident, plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to make a claim with the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Pund Board. Thereafter, the aforesaid amended complaint against the Director was filed.

We agree with the trial court that plaintiffs’ problem involved the whereabouts of the persons involved rather than their identity and that the Tit and run’ *(N. J. S. A.*39:6-78, 79) section of the Motor Vehicle Act was inapplicable to this situation.

It is undisputed that plaintiffs failed to comply with the ninety-day notice provision of the Statute. As noted by the trial court, this would be an additional bar to plaintiffs’ suit against the Director. *Schlenger v.*Conti, 47 *N. J. Super.*566 *(App. Div.*1957). Dor is there any substance to the contention that the injured plaintiff’s physical condition rendered her physically incapable of giving notice within ninety days. She was initially released from the hospital less than three weeks after the accident. At about the same time the original suit herein was filed. Manifestly, the failure to notify the Pund was not due to physical incapacity on the part of the injured plaintiff.

Affirmed.”

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the Per Curiam opinion of the Appellate Division.

*For*ajfti-mance—Chief Justice Weietraub and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettieo, and HaneMAE-7.

*For*reversal—Done.
#### Monroe M. Kelly, Respondent, *v.*Nancy Bruce and others, *Appellants.*

— Judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to modify the judgment by deducting therefrom the sum of $322.36, in which case the judgment as so modified is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Opinion by Hardin, J.
### Faulk, Scott (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject:
Good morning, Susan Forsberg <susanforsberg20@gmail.com> Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:41 PM EAS (OST) Mokulele Airlines to Kalaupapa \.-' i

I am writing to let youknowhow vital it is for the people that live and work down onKalaupapato have air service to get them to Drs appts, to the hospital etc. It is impossible for them to walk up the Sea Cliffs: 3.5 miles, 26 switchbacks and 1600'. Itis challenging for those ofus on Molokai let alone down in Kalaupapa. Mokulele Airlines have been a true blessing to all the people here on Molokai. They are fast, ontime , very friendly and, in my opinion, the best airline that service Molokai. They would provide a muchneeded service to the people down in Kalaupapa. · Itis my suggestionthat you award Mokulele Airlines the ability to service Kalaupapa. Thankyou for your consideration. I hope you all have a Happy Thanksgiving. Mahalo, Susan Forsberg Molokai Fish and Dive #808-553-5926 - store phone

www.molokaifishanddive.com www.scubadivemolokai.com www.snorkelmolokai.com www.whalewatchmolokai.com

1
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Craig D. AboltAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Craig D. AboltChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 3, 2006
    
    
    
    August 3, 2006
 53
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert J. Zatta,certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

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

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information 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)          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                                |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                    |
| Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffrey A. Jacobs, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 12]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 30,1994, which ruled, *inter alia,*that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Claimant was found to have willfully made false statements to obtain unemployment insurance benefits and, *inter alia,*was held liable for a recoverable overpayment of benefits in the amount of $9,240.75 as the result of his failure to disclose activities he engaged in with respect to two home businesses. The evidence in the record establishes that claimant ordered supplies, wrote checks and performed other services with respect to these businesses. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
FRONTIER FUNDS



Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C.§1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2018, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to
the best of his 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 Frontier Funds.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/
                                         Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|Patrick
    J. Kane                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|Chairman,
                                                                     Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer
and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC,
the Managing Owner
                                                                     of Frontier Funds
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|August 14, 2018
Before the Second Division,

March 27, 1952

No. 56505.

protest 171826-K (San Francisco).

#### American Smelting & Refining Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
=E&o-tke. Qj&jttrc£ (Lrhi/Poaf nJD. courtofom\w&mbKMk- C^f-Jutes, 

### »* 27 M- —__ AUG 27 2015 ! Acosfa, Clef 4iK^ Qv_5zl Qs/^ ^_ CAjjy9- d£> Q2VUS;Hi^- -25^ 

## ^MarJ-Zmh^^- l]^h!s firs//tz^^o Oca^/o^o
#### LOOMAN REALTY CORPORATION, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THE BROAD STREET NATIONAL BANK, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

See same case below: 74 *N. J. Super,*71.

*Messrs. Kahn, Schildhraut & Levy*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Wicoff & Voorhees, Mr. John J. Connell, Messrs. Milton, Keane & Be Bona,*and *Mr. Allan E. Klinger*for the respondents.

June 11, 1962.