alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FastenTech, Inc. and Subsidiaries



Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

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

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Ronald B Kalich, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FastenTech, 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; and

c) 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 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 the 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; and

b) 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.



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Ronald B. Kalich                 
|                  |  | Ronald B. Kalich                     
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  | FastenTech, Inc.                     



33
(Reap. Dec. 9555)

#### William H. Tripp, Jr. *v.*United States

Entry No. 701213.

(Decided December 9, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Ooohran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
NO. 12-19-00282-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.L.,

A CHILD 

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 402ND 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

On August 14, 2019, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant, B.N.W., that the filing fee 

in this appeal is due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing 

fee on or before August 26, would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including 

dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The date for remitting 

the filing fee passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered September 11, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

NO. 12-19-00282-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.L., A CHILD

Appeal from the 402nd District Court 

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2013-335)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
March 24, 2015

Mr. Stephen Kashat

Bird’s Eye Digital Imaging

1721 Dogwood Trail

Commerce Township, MI 48390

Dear Mr. Kashat:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 19, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Bird’s Eye Digital 

Imaging into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0436), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 99.1

LOGO

UNIVERSAL ORLANDO RELEASES FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR

THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2011

ORLANDO, FLORIDA (May 13, 2011)  Universal Orlando released financial results for the first quarter of 2011 today, showing continued strong
performance and enthusiasm for its destination.

For the three months ending March 31, 2011, Universal City Development Partners Ltd.
(d/b/a Universal Orlando), which owns and operates Universal Studios Florida, Universals Islands of Adventure and Universal CityWalk, reported a 68 percent increase in attendance over the same period from 2010, to 2.8 million from 1.7
million. Revenue increased 90 percent to $309 million from $163 million. EBITDA for the quarter increased to $107 million from $18 million, with net income rising to $46 million.

We are very happy with how our year has started and we going to work to maintain that momentum as we move forward, said Bill Davis, president of Universal Orlando. We continue to see
excitement for everything we offer  from attraction experiences to special events, such as Mardi Gras.

About Universal Orlando
Resort

There are many ways to enjoy your Orlando vacation  but there is only one Universal Orlando Resort. It is a completely
separate destination featuring two theme parks, three magnificently themed on-site hotels and a nighttime entertainment complex. Its the only Orlando destination where you are not just entertained  you are part of the most exhilarating
entertainment ever created. You can soar above Hogwarts with Harry Potter, swing above the streets with Spider-Man, battle aliens alongside Agent J, help Shrek save Princess Fiona and create mischief with Bart Simpson. More information is available
at www.universalorlando.com.

###



|                |  |                                                                                      
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Media Contacts: |  | Universal Orlando Public Relations  (407) 363-8220 http://media.universalorlando.com
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-56058) and Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-7288, No. 333-7290, No. 33-64326, No. 33-95224, No. 33-715956, No.
333-42070 and No. 333-42072) of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. of our report dated
January 26, 2001, except for Note 14 which is as of March 9, 2001, relating to
the financial statements, which appears in the Form 20-F.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Miami, Florida
April 16, 2001
EXHIBIT 4.13

                                    SCHEDULE

                   Information on six substantially identical
                         Assignments of Leases and Rents
                           dated as of March 23, 2001
                    to First Union National Bank as Assignee


       (Six additional documents are identical, except as set forth below,
                    to the document included as Exhibit 4.5)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 Apartment Property                             Assignor
                 ------------------                             --------
                 <S>                                            <C>
                 Harbour Club Apartments                        CRIT-VA II, Inc.
                 Virginia Beach, Virginia

                 Highland Hills Apartments                      CRIT-NC III, LLC
                 Carrboro, North Carolina

                 Canyon Hills                                   CAC II Limited Partnership
                 Austin, Texas

                 Park Village                                   CAC II Limited Partnership
                 Bedford, Texas

                 Summertree                                     CAC II Limited Partnership
                 Dallas, Texas

                 The Courts on Pear Ridge                       CAC II Limited Partnership
                 Dallas, Texas
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the annual
report of Mirae Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gi Hoon Joung, Acting Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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: November 30, 2005



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gi Hoon Joung                                       
|Gi Hoon Joung                                           
|Director of Accounting Team;                            
|Currently performing the role of Chief Financial Officer



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



This certification will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Young, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 409]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.), rendered December 23, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

As the result of an incident in which a quantity of cocaine was found in defendant’s automobile, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a term of 21⁄3 to 7 years in prison and required to pay a $5,000 fine. Inasmuch as defendant waived his right to appeal the judgment of conviction, he is precluded from challenging the sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive. However, even if we were to consider defendant’s claim on the merits, we would not find, in view of defendant’s admission that he supported himself through the sale of drugs, that the sentence imposed is harsh or excessive. Accordingly, we decline to disturb County

Court’s judgment.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Natungo Burks, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 173]

—Judgment, *202Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered April 27, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court’s directions to restrict defense counsel’s opening statement to "what you intend to prove by way of evidence in the case” impermissibly shifted the burden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court’s instructions were substantively correct and did not imply that the defendant had a burden to prove anything (see, *People v Mar*tinez, 207 AD2d 284, *lv denied*84 NY2d 908; *cf., People v Rodriguez,*211 AD2d 443).

It was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion to restrict cross-examination of the victim as to the fact of his prior motor vehicle accidents, and to preclude the details thereof, as such details bore little relevance to the intentional assault charge or the intoxication defense *(see, People v Sorge,*301 NY 198, 201-202; *People v Trinidad, 111*AD2d 286, *Iv denied*79 NY2d 865).

The trial court’s interested witness charge was appropriate as defendant was the only interested witness as a matter of law in the case. The court also informed the jury that they could consider the interest of all witnesses in determining credibility *(see, People v Huynh,*215 AD2d 168; *People v Bow-den,*198 AD2d 39). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.
No. 47947.

#### Protests 980839-G, etc., of Amerlux Steel Corp. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the steel bale ties in question are similar to those involved in *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47). They were therefore held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1604 as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8670 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8670

  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the time at 
 which age is assessed for the purpose of determining whether an alien 
                       is an immediate relative.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2024

   Ms. Omar (for herself, Mr. Correa, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Norton) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the time at 
 which age is assessed for the purpose of determining whether an alien 
                       is an immediate relative.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Status Fairness and 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT.

    Section 201(f)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1151(f)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by amending the heading to read as follows: ``Age 
        requirement in case of parent naturalization.--''; and
            (2) by striking ``age of the alien on the date of the 
        parent's naturalization'' and inserting ``the date on which the 
        petition was initially filed''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Second Division,

July 16, 1940

No. 44106.

#### Protest 797036-G of Akawo & Co., Ltd. (Memphis).

*280Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6653

PATRICIA ANN ALDRIDGE, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. DAVID BALLARD, Respondent – Appellee,

and DALE HUMPHREYS, Warden, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00827)

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia Ann Aldridge, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Darrell V. McGraw, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: Patricia Ann Aldridge seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aldridge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### William Watson, *Appellant, v.*James W. Smith, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Macomber, J.
No. 38929.

#### Protests 861031-G, etc., of Fara Macaroni Imptg. Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *United States*v. *Field*(25 C. C. P. A. 308, T. D. 49422) and *Anniston*v. *Davis*(301 U. S. 337) the protests were dismissed.
#### Peter M. Overbagh and others, *Respondents, v.*Harvey D. Van Pelt, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
Case No. 14,530.

#### UNITED STATES v. BARRY.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 606.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1835.

Larceny — Indictment — Bank Note — Amount and Value — Coin.

An indictment under the penitentiary act of the District of Columbia, for stealing a bank-note, must state the amount, as well as value of the note. "One hundred silver coins of the value of seventy-five dollars,” is a sufficient description of the money stolen.

[Cited in Arnold v. State, 52 Ind. 285.]

The prisoner [Richard Barry] was convicted under the 9th section of the penitentiary act of March 2, 1831, of stealing “one banknote of the value of twenty dollars; and one hundred silver coins of the value of seventy-five dollars.” By that section of the act, it is enacted, “that every person convicted of feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away any goods or chattels, or other personal property of the value of five dollars or upwards; or any bank-note, promissory note, or any other instrument of writing for the payment or delivery of money, or other valuable thing, to the amount of five dollars, or upwards, shall be sentenced to suffer imprisonment and labor.” &e.

Mr. Hoban, for prisoner,

moved in arrest of judgment: (1)> That although the value of the bank-note is averred in the indictment, yet the amount of money thereby promised is not. It must appear to be a note for the payment of five dollars or upwards, in order to justify a sentence to the penitentiary. (2) That the expression “silver coins” is of too general import to support an indictment.

Mr. Hoban

cited Rex v. Craven. 2 East, P. C. 001; Rex v. Milnes, Id. 602; Stewart’s Case, 4 Serg. & R. 194.

Mr. Key, contra,

cited 3 Chit. Cr. Law, 947, 973, 974a; 2 East, P. C. 497; 1 Chit. 235-237; Leigh’s Case, 1 Leach, Crown Cas. 52; Grimes’ Case, 2 East, P. C. 647.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion that the amount as well as value of the note ought to have been averred; but that the description, “one hundred silver coins of the value of seventy-five dollars,” was sufficiently certain, and therefore refused to arrest the judgment.

The prisoner was sentenced to the penitentiary for three years.