alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of Anthony Clark International Insurance
Brokers Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Primo Podorieszach, the 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:

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.

                                           (signed) "Primo Podorieszach"

                                           ______________________________
                                           Primo Podorieszach
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           September 15, 2003


<PAGE>


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Anthony Clark International Insurance
Brokers Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Shelley Samec, the Chief Financial 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:

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.

                                             (signed) "Shelley Samec"

                                             ___________________________
                                             Shelley Samec
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             September 15, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4362

DOUGLAS E. MILLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-97-205)

Submitted: February 11, 1999

Decided: March 9, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Theodore R. Dues, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Mills pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). At sentencing, the district

court heard from witnesses and found that Mills should be held

responsible for 191.41 grams of crack cocaine. Mills alleges on

appeal that the Government's evidence supporting three ounces of

that total amount was not sufficiently reliable, and that the district

court erred in attributing the three ounces of crack cocaine to him.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Mills pled guilty after he and his girlfriend, Latricia Collins, were

arrested for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. Mills made controlled buys from Collins' father, Ricky High, a Government informant. At sentencing, High testified that, in Collins' presence, Mills

showed him cocaine base shaped in a cookie form and that Mills told

High the total quantity of this cocaine base was three ounces. Detective Hart testified that Mills reported this incident to him the next

morning. Collins, however, who was to be sentenced for her part in

the conspiracy less than one week later, testified that the incident

described by her father never happened.

We give due deference to the district judge's opportunity to assess

the credibility of witnesses, and will only reverse the court's factual

findings if they are clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams,

977 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1992). After full review of the record, and

in deference to the district court's credibility determinations, we cannot say that the district court's crediting of Mills' testimony over Collins' was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm Mills' sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
#### ARTHUR J. SILLS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HAWTHORNE, NEW JERSEY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued May 4, 1964

Decided May 18, 1964.

*Mr. Alexander E. Fasoli*argued the cause for appellants.

*Mr. Joseph A. Hoffman,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents *(Mr. Arthur J. Sills,*Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

*352
      *Messrs. Ghandless, Weller £ Kramer,*attorneys for William Boyle, filed a brief *amicus curiae (Mr. Ralph*W. *Ghandless,*of counsel).

Pee Cubiam.

The judgment entered in the Chancery Division declared *R.. S.*18:14-77 and *R. S.*18:14-78 to be unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants from authorizing or practicing religious ceremonies in the public schools of Hawthorne. The judgment was patently sound under the principles expressed by the United States Supreme Court in *Abington School Dist. v. Schempp,*374 U. *S.*203, 83 *S. Ct.*1560, 10 *L. Ed. 2d*844 (1963), and it is accordingly:

Affirmed.

*For affirmance*— -Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Pbancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Hanemar — 7.

*For reversal*— None.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES SCHARFSTEIN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March 2, 1964

Decided June 1, 1964.

*Mr. John J. Francis, Jr.,*Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant *{Mr. Peter Murray,*Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel; *Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).

*Mr. Thomas B. Durlcin, Jr.,*argued the cause for respondent *{Mr. William J. Gearly,*of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division for the reasons given by it. State *v. Scharfstein,*79 *N. J. Super.*236*(App. Div.*1963). *We*emphasize that here, upon an anonymous tip and nothing more, there was a search of the person. *We*intimate no view upon whether such infor*355mation would justify a search of a vehicle if surveillance is not feasible or whether upon such information the person too may be searched if the alleged offense is grievous and such immediate measures appear to be urgently needed.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

*For reversal*— None.
#### Edward N. Cook and others, Appellants, *v.*The City of Buffalo and another, *Respondents.*

Order of Special Term affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Hardin, J.; Haight, L, not sitting. .
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Viastar Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
J. Malasek, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant 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 the Company.

/s/ Zee Batal
----------------------
Zee Batal
President, Chief Financial
Officer and Director
April 11, 2003


                                    - 30 -
=======================================================================
<PAGE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8286 

To prohibit Federal funding for National Public Radio and to provide for 

the transfer of certain Federal funds that would have been made available 

to National Public Radio to reduce the public debt, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2024 

Ms. TENNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding for National Public Radio and 

to provide for the transfer of certain Federal funds that 

would have been made available to National Public Radio 

to reduce the public debt, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defund NPR Act of 

5 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8286 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NA2 TIONAL PUBLIC RADIO. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—After the date of the enactment 

4 of this Act, no Federal funds may, directly or indirectly, 

5 be made available to or used to support an organization 

6 described in subsection (b), including through the payment 

7 of dues to or the purchase of programming from such or8 ganization by a public broadcast station using Federal 

9 funds received by such station. 

10 (b) ORGANIZATIONS DESCRIBED.—The organizations 

11 described in this subsection are— 

12 (1) the organization known, as of the date of 

13 the enactment of this Act, as ‘‘National Public 

14 Radio’’; and 

15 (2) any successor organization to an organiza16 tion described in paragraph (1). 

17 (c) TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FUNDS TO REDUCE THE

18 PUBLIC DEBT.—For fiscal years 2024, 2025, and 2026, 

19 the Corporation for Public Broadcasting shall transfer to 

20 the account established by section 3113(d) of title 31, 

21 United States Code, an amount equal to the amount allo22 cated under section 396(k)(3)(A)(iii) of the Communica23 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)) that would 

24 have been made available to an organization described in 

25 subsection (b) but for the prohibition in subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Tracy Norilng-Babbitt <tracy@island-realestate.com> 

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:50 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Kalaupapa EAS 

Aloha Department of Transportation, 

Today I write to you in support of The 4year bid Mokulele has submitted to you which would link Kalupapa to Kahalui, 

Honolulu, Kapalua and Ho'olehua. I feel they are the best candidate with low fares, great agents, frequent flights and a 

superior booking system. It is important for our island to have safe, stable and affordable service to Kalaupapa. 

Please select Sundara.Venu@rrreview.com to serve Kalaupapa for 4 years. 

Mahala for your time, 

Tracy Norling-Babbitt 

Tropical Island Properties, LLC 

tracy@ island-rea I estate .com 

Office 808 553-3648 

Fax 808 553-3783 

Cell 360 305-7092 

1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

d0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

142003 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142003 

 COA: 290352 

Berrien CC: 2008-402980-FC 

OMAR NIGEL NELUMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Karen L. G. Archambo, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.

Argued April 9, 1981,

before Judges Mencer, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three.

*'Alan I. Rosenberg, Hennessy & Rosenberg,*for petitioner.

*207May 7, 1981:

*Karen Durkin,*Assistant Attorney General, with her *Elsa D. Newman-Silverstein,*Assistant Attorney General, *Richard Wagner,*Chief Counsel, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Attorney General, for respondent.

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

In this unemployment compensation appeal, the claimant1 questions a denial of compensation by the board,2 which reversed a referee’s decision and found the claimant, a grinder and sandblaster, ineligible for compensation on the basis of the voluntary quit provision of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).3 We affirm.

On May 18, 1979, the claimant admittedly resigned voluntarily from her position with the employer.4 Therefore the sole issue for this court to decide is whether the board capriciously disregarded competent evidence by concluding that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that her resignation was precipitated by cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.5

After reviewing the record, we cannot find that the board capriciously disregarded competent evidence.

The claimant contends that medical difficulties emanating from her employment forced her to resign. *208Although the claimant introduced a letter from her physician which stated that she was suffering from extreme anxiety neurosis probably related to stress and tension from her work, the record reveals that the claimant was not advised by a physician to terminate her employment. Moreover, the letter from claimant’s doctor was dated a month after she had quit, and is of little evidentiary value because it does not adequately set forth the status of the claimant’s health as it existed when she terminated her employment. *See Eckenrod v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 166, 325 A.2d 320 (1974).

With respect to claimant’s alternate contention, that exposure to the chemical Xylene caused the job to be hazardous, the board, in exercising its power to judge credibility, clearly declined to credit claimant’s testimony on that score.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.

Order

And Now, May 7,1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby affirmed.

1

 Karen L. G. Archambo.

2

 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

3

 Section 402(b) (1), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §802(b) (1).

4

**Franklin Mint.

5

 The claimant bas tbe burden of proving that be terminated bis employment for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. *Colduvell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 185, 408 A.2d 1207 (1979). Where the party with -the burden of proof fails before tbe board, our scope of review is to '-determine whether there bas been a capricious disregard of competent evidence. *Clark v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 571, 411 A.2d 879 (1980).
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PRINTICE WYSINGLE, Jr., Staff Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

18 USCMA 314, 40 CMR 26

No. 21,597

May 9, 1969

*Captain Thomas R. Maher*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. Drucker,*and *Captain Stephen Arinson.*

*Captain Benjamin G. Porter*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick*and *Major Edwin P. Wasinger.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Among other offenses, the accused was convicted of an attempt to entice certain named enlisted men “to engage in acts of prostitution with persons to be directed to them” by him. The issues presented by this appeal are essentially those raised in United States v Adams, 18 USCMA 310, 40 CMR 22, together with a contention that the law officer’s instructions on the sentence were prejudicially inadequate in regard to mitigating matters the court members could properly consider. See United States v Wheeler, 17 USCMA 274, 38 CMR 72.

For the reasons set out in our opinion in *Adams,*the findings of guilty of specification 4 are set aside, and the specification is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the board of review for further consideration of the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty and in light of our opinion in the *Wheeler*case.

Judges Ferguson and Darden concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Robert J. Zatta, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant'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 registrant and have:



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



|Date: May 16, 2005                                                                               |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ROBERT J. ZATTARobert J. Zatta
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Martha F. Sperry, *Appellant, v.*The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Dwight, J., and by Daniels, J., dissenting.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 24, 2014

h1021

Order 

Clerk

October 24, 2014

149014

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149014

COA: 312280

Calhoun CC: 2011-003419-FC

MATTHEW ALLEN MILBOURN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Although the 

Court of Appeals erred in determining that the law enforcement officer’s testimony 

regarding the complainant’s prior consistent statement was properly admitted because it 

was not hearsay, the erroneous admission of this testimony does not warrant relief in this 

case because it did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, as required by People v 

Carines, 460 Mich 750, 774 (1999).
Report of Independent Accountants


Board of Directors
Provident Financial Group, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report
titled Report of Management, that The Provident Bank (Provident) complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1999. Management is responsible for Provident's
compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management's assertion about Provident's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on
Provident's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Provident complied with the
aforementioned requirements during the year ended December 31, 1999, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.




                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


March 31, 2000