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



EXHIBITS 31.1 AND 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




---



##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, Richard J. Jarosinski, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portec Rail Products, 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 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:
 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial 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 has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 May 9, 2007
    
    /s/ Richard J. JarosinskiDate
    

Richard J. JarosinskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Butler Township Appeal.

Argued October 7, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, *JJ.*

*642
      *Leo M. Stepanian,*with him *Brydon, Step aman, O’Brien & Cook,*for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.

November 11, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

The lower Court appointed a reapportionment Commission. The findings of this Commission were challenged and the lower Court appointed an attorney to represent the Commission in the impending litigation. The appellant challenges the right of the Court to appoint an attorney to represent a reapportionment Commission. The present state of the record presents no justiciable issue.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) to the quarterly report of G2 Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2009 (the Report), I, Gust Kepler, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Gust Kepler            
|Gust Kepler                
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 7, 2009             

A signed original of this certification 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.
#### Charlotte Lake River Associates, a Limited Partnership, et al., Plaintiffs, v American Insurance Company et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Monroe County,

December 4, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Sugarman, Wallace, Manheim & Schoenwald (Charles M. Manheim*and *James G. Stevens, Jr.,*of counsel), for Northrup, Kaelber & Kopf, defendant. *Dahan & Appel (Paul H. Appel*of counsel), for plaintiffs. *McGrath, Meyer, Lieberman & Lipp*for American Insurance Company, defendant. *Harter, Secrest & Emery*for Union Commerce Bank, defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Marshall E. Livingston, J.

Defendants Northrup, Kaelber and Kopf (NKK) move for a protective order striking the interrogatories directed to them by plaintiffs, and plaintiffs cross-move for sanctions upon NKK for their willful failure to answer those interrogatories to which they have not specifically objected.

The action arises out of the construction of a residential rental housing project in Rochester, New York, known as Charlotte Lake River Houses. The complaint sets forth five *249causes of action. The third cause of action, directed against NKK, the architects of the project, essentially sounds in malpractice and negligence concerning the construction and supervision of the project by NKK, and not for any breach of contract, as it purports to do.

CPLR 3130 limits the use of interrogatories to actions "other than in an action to recover damages * * * resulting from negligence”. It has been held that negligence is the basis of a malpractice action, which is tortious in nature, and predicated upon a failure to exercise requisite skill *(Fiorentino v Jaques,*41 Misc 2d 972; see, also, *Allen v Minskoff,*38 NY2d 506).

Therefore, NKK’s motion striking the interrogatories directed to them is granted, and plaintiffs cross motion is denied.
Before the Third Division,

December 28, 1938

No. 40253.

#### Protests 851314-G, etc., of A. W. Fenton Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

On the authority of *Fenton*v. *United States*(C. D. 40) the wooden boxes in question were held dutiable at 331⁄8 percent under paragraph 412. The silk baby shoes were held dutiable at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 as assessed.
I am Chris Horwitz, resident of Pittsburgh and CEO of Electrogrip, a manufacturer for 

the semiconductor industry. I am enthusiastic about climate protection and energy 

saving. For example, my business has a green building. This comes at a cost, which 

has the potential to make us less competitive than other firms. 

For more than 25 years I have been disappointed by Pittsburgh's deadly power 

station fine particle and mercury pollution. I could not believe just how many decades 

it took for the EPA to force our power stations to comply with its New Source 

regulations. I am now grateful for the EPA's New Source actions which will help 

Pittsburgh to maintain its goal of being a 'most livable city'. 

I can understand the desire of the owners of coal mines to ignore safety regulations 

and to promote continued coal use. Similarly, I can understand the preference of 

utilities, viewed as private businesses, to continue polluting. However the societal 

cost of the lost lives of coal miners, and of pollution in all of our lives, is far greater 

than such short-term private savings. 

Utilities are in a protected position with regulated and relatively predictable income 

streams, unlike private industry, and our decisions should prioritise public interest 

rather than their profits. If we delay modern emissions standards, we would continue 

relying on outdated generators. Why should this country have old and rusty systems, 

rather than the best? 

By moving to wind and solar generation we will gain more and better jobs, lower 

costs, and lessened climate change. For example, the peak output of the 2GW Homer 

City power station outside Pittsburgh could come from solar panel arrays for only 

double the $700 million cost of its proposed effluent dry scrubber. Alternatively, with 

current wind technology the entire USA could be powered by an area just 6 times 

larger than the central City of Pittsburgh. As proof that strict power station emissions 

standards work in the USA, over the past 6 years the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative of 10 NorthEast states has obtained lower energy costs AND faster 

economic growth than surrounding states. Thus taking care of our climate can also 

make our economy better off. 

I applaud the new EPA carbon initiatives and strongly urge the EPA not to yield to 

polluting interests. Yielding would not only be betraying its duty to protect the public. It 

would also be betraying investors in modern energy systems, who would be forced to 

bear all of the costs. Due to fossil fuel subsidies this would yield a competitive 

advantage to more polluting firms. This cannot be in the public interest. A level and fair 

playing field which protects our population and our climate will help us all to claim a 

bright and sustainable future. 

Chris M. Horwitz, PhD 

CEO, Electrogrip 6945 Lynn Way Pittsburgh PA 15208 USA
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 September 12, 2019

Order 

Clerk

September 12, 2019

159531(102)

LEOLA ROBERTSON, Personal 

Representative of the ESTATE OF 

MARTEL ROBERTSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 159531

v COA: 337961

Wayne CC: 15-010455-NI

LADARIUS DEANGELO JOHNSON,

Defendant,

and

U-HAUL CO. OF MICHIGAN, also known as

2013 U-HAUL TITLING 1, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Truck Renting and Leasing Association 

to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be 

accepted for filing if submitted on or before September 17, 2019.
Before the Third Division,

June 10, 1948

No. 52378.

protest 59374-K (New York).

#### Musicraft Records, Inc. *v.*United States,

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.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice 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 the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
### CMP-4 Revised: May 3, 2004 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Supplemental Application Form



# Conservation Management Practices: COTTON

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to

Maximum Crop Acreage:

Fallow Acreage Last Planted in Cotton:

Land Preparation/ Cultivation Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. Bed/Row Size or Spacing, ac Integrated Pest Management (IPM), ac Chemigation/Fertigation, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Combined Operations, ac Night Farming, ac Conservation Irrigation, ac Precision Farming (GPS), ac Conservation Tillage, ac Transgenic Crops, ac Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Harvest Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. Conservation Tillage, (e.g. no plow-down), ac Shuttle System, ac Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Other Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.. Application Efficiencies, ac No Burning, ac Bulk Materials Control Soil Amendments, ac Conservation Irrigation, ac Surface Roughening, ac Integrated Pest Management (IPM), ac Transgenic Crops, ac Irrigation Power Units Wind Barrier, ac Mulching, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: CMP 4
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 Portec Rail Products, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, John
S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Michael D. Bornak, Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, 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 our knowledge:  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
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. The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. August 4, 2004
    
    /s/ John S. CooperDateJohn S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 4, 2004
    
    /s/ Michael D. BornakDateMichael D. Bornak, Chief Financial Officer
 A signed copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
Martin, Michael (OST) 

Subject: FW: Request for Extension of Bid Deadline 

From: Barry Griffith [mailto:barryq@flytheshoals.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:44 PM 

To: Martin, Michael (OST) 

Cc: Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); tom.heanue@flypib.com; Tom Williams <TWilliams@meridianairport.com> 

(TWilliams@meridianairport.com); Joshua Abramson; dyant@qreenvillems.org; Beale, Scott; Michael Mooney 

Subject: Re: Request for Extension of Bid Deadline 

Michael: 

~,,,,__ -~ 

"',: :~ j 

MSL is concerned that ADI has no gate at ATL and does not have any interline or code share agreements to our 

knowledge at this time. While we appreciate ADI's interest in MSL, it appears that they are not a legitimate 

bidder and cannot currently meet MSL's air service needs. We see no reason to delay or extend the May 19, 

2014 deadline. 

Best regards, 

Barry 

1
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the quarterly
report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Dale E. Hoover, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and 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 Exchange Act; and

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

Date: August 17, 2012

| | By: | /s/
      DALE E. HOOVER
| | --- | ------------------------
| |     |                         
| |     | Dale E. Hoover          
| |     | Chief Financial Officer 

---
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT NEILD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued April 1, 1968

Decided April 4, 1968.

*Mr. Joseph A. Davis*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. John D. Grossi*argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. James A. Tumulty, Jr.,*attorney).

Pee Cueiam.

Appellant seeks to raise the question whether the constitution required explicit advice to him of his right to appeal from his criminal conviction. No such issue was projected in the trial court in this post-conviction proceeding. It was first sought to be raised in the Appellate Division without any factual grounding in the record. This being so, there is no basis for the present appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed.

*407
      *For dismissal*— Chief Justice Weiftraub and Justices Jacobs, Frafcis, Proctor, Hall, Schettifo and Hanemaf—7.

*Opposed*— None.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report of Nord Anglia Education, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Graeme Halder, 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 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.

 

 

Date:  December 31, 2015

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Graeme Halder |                    |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:             | Graeme Halder           |   |
|   | Title:            | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Before the First Division,

April 12, 1945

No. 50124.

#### Petitions 6461-R, etc., of Nicholas Gal (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Entry was made on the basis of United States value, and the merchandise was appraised on the basis of foreign value. At the trial the petitioner testified that he made inquiry in Germany as to the prices and conditions under which aluminum foil was sold for home consumption; that prior to entry in all cases he submitted to the appraiser, through his broker, copies of the invoices and all information as to value; that he had several conferences with the customs examiners who handled these importations; and that as a result of his inquiries, he concluded that there was no foreign value for the merchandise in question. In accordance therewith and upon advice of the examiner he made entry on the basis of United States value. From the entire record the court held that it was clear the importer was honestly convinced that United States value was the proper -basis upon which entry should have been made; that neither petitioner nor his broker concealed any material facts; and that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States. Entry 761751 in petition 6472-R, having been abandoned, was dismissed. In all other respects the petitions were granted.
#### The First National Bank of Utica, Respondent, *v.*The National Bank of Norwich, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affirmed on opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Merwin at the circuit;

Hardin, J., not sitting.
Case No. 9,860.

#### MORSE v. REED.

Circuit Court, D. New York.

1796.

'Patents fob Invention’s — Infringement—Penalty and Forfeiture — Injunction.

[In a suit to recover the forfeiture and pecuniary penalty imposed by Act Feb. 21,1793. § 5 (1 Stat. 322), for infringement of patent, the circuit court will also grant a perpetual injunction.]

[Cited in Livingston v. Van Ingen. 9 Johns. 537; Motte v. Bennett, Case No. 9.884; and, sub nom. Morse v. Reed, in Binns v. Woodruff, Id. 1,424.]

[Before Ellsworth, Circuit Justice.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0142 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHEYENE LEILANI

– AMBER ZIELIE,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 6 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

October 30 2023

10/30/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0142
#### Draeger Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6649.

Entry No. 749025, etc.

Invoices dated Burslem, England, March 11, 1942, etc.

Certified March 19, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 28, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 19, 1946)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.