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

                            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 quarterly report of Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William C. Robinson, CEO, Chairman and Principal Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                                                 CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

                                                 By: /s/ William C. Robinson
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     William C. Robinson
                                                     CEO, Chairman and Principal
                                                     Executive Officer

                                                     June 22, 2006
No. 46992.

#### Protests 67096-K, etc., of M. Adlers Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Dellwood Country Club, Inc., Appellant, v Budget Rent A Car Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[699 *195NYS2d 482]

—In an action to recover for property damage, the plaintiff appeals, (1) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated November 25, 1998, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Budget Rent A Car Corporation which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered December 10, 1998, upon the order. The notice of appeal from the order dated November 25, 1998, is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment entered thereon *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment thereon *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Budget Rent A Car Corporation (hereinafter Budget) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Budget established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial *(see, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales,*66 NY2d 965; *Zambito v Catanzaro,*264 AD2d 839).

The Supreme Court properly rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Budget’s cross motion should be denied pending completion of discovery *(see,*CPLR 3212 [f]). By moving for summary judgment before completion of discovery, the plaintiff charted its own procedural course in this case and may not now be heard to complain *(see, John Eric Jacoby, M.D., P. C. v Loper Assocs.,*249 AD2d 277, 278). Furthermore, between the commencement of the action in August 1996 and the motion for summary judgment in July 1998, the plaintiff did not avail itself of the opportunity to obtain the discovery which it now contends is outstanding *(see, Douglas Manor Assn. v Alimaras,*215 AD2d 522, 524). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1   WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  1. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada.    Date: August 7, 2008  /s/ Donald R. Mayer Donald R. Mayer Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2CertificationsI, Sukhbir Singh Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, of Caneum, Inc.; 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 

 
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005/s/ Sukhbir Singh Mudan
p.1 

RCRA Box 1883 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

89) ll-B-251 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/3/2008 10:42:16 AM Sheet 89 of 171 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-B-251 

MEMORANDA 

JO; SEP 4f99e .; 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

DATE: January 13, 1992 

SUBJECT: Incorporation by Reference of Docket No. A-83-29 

FROM: Dorothy Pickett, Radian Corporation 

TO: Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Process Vents Docket No, 

A-90-19. 

Docket A-83-29 contains information that is relevant to 

assess Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Docket 

A-83-29 is incorporated by reference in the HON Process Vents 

docket. Docket A-83-29 is located in the Air Docket Section of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, West Tower Lobby, 4 01 M 

Street SW, Washington, DC. 

\
ot) ST Aerospace

A com pal'! ot ST Enginefiring

ST Aerospace Mobile, Inc

2100 9th Street, 8rookley Complex

Mobile, Alabama 36615, USA

Tel: (251) 438 8888

Fax: (251) 438 8892

FAA Atlanta 21

st

December, 2011

Subject: Petition for Exemption

Reference: FAA Project Number ST13005AT-T

Dear Mr. Avella,

STA Mob~le submits the answers to the questions raised by the FAA with regards to the petition for

exemption on the Main Deck Cargo Door (MDCD) meeting § 25.783 Amendment 114.

1. What efforts has STA Mobile already done on the design changes to make a compliant door?

STA Mobile has started feasibility studies to see how to make the door compliant to Amendment 114

based on the last week feedback from FAA on the position of the MDCD.

2. What are the proposed design changes?

As it is only last week, we do not have anything definite yet but plan to have a go-to-design in 12 months.

Prototyping and testing is planned to be within 18-20 months.

3. When will they be incorporated into the airplane that has already been modified?

We seek a time-limited exemption of 2 years and have the changes implemented in the MDCD on MSN

25622 by the end of this period or sooner. We are in discussions with potential customers to convert

more aircraft in accordance with this STC; we would like to apply this exemption to other aircraft and have

them retrofitted within the exemption period. We do not know the MSN for these aircraft yet.

Sincerely,

hr

Terence Tan

Director Engineering

ST Aerospace Mobile, Inc.

Office: (251) 436-0181

E-mail: Terence_TAN@stmae.com

-,'

Page 1 of 1 • "'. Singapore Technologies

~ =I E' . .,m. ngmeenng
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 8035.

Entered at San Eraneisco, Calif.

Entry No. 7633.

(Decided August 10, 1951)

*Sharretts, SilUs & Paley (Howard G. Garter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David, N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Bao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the-earthenware articles covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated on schedule “A” hereto attached and made part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets *420of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> • IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to re-appraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

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 earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeal having been submitted for decision without the introduction of any evidence in support thereof insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Rev 0 (9/08) 

## Com **ments i**  **n Response to “**  **Final r**  **ule; r**  **equest for c**  **om ments**  **”**
**Docket: FAA**  **- 20**  **13 -**  **0306 Directorate Identifier**  **2013 -**  **NM -**  **049 -** **AD** Comments have been received in response to : **“ Final rule; requ**  **est for comments,”** Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate I dentifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. Once you have made your determination, please fill in the com menter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, if necessary. Then **include your name and**  **the date**  in the spaces provided, and return it to the AD directorate focal. The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we re ceived from: Dassault Falcon Jet and Emerson Aviation Department. **(Please check on**  **e**

**)** These comments **have not** been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change of this AD. These comments **have** been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory

action. 

### (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual **FAA -**  **IR -**  **M -**  **8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)**

______Thomas Rodriguez

_____ May 1, 2014

__ Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
APHIS Factsheet

Biotechnology Regulatory Services February 2012

Questions and Answers: 

Environmental 

Assessment on 

Genetically Engineered 

Eucalyptus

Q. What is a eucalyptus?

A. Eucalyptus species are among the fastest growing 

woody plants in the world and represent about 8 percent 

of all planted forests. While there are over 700 eucalyptus species identified, only a limited number are grown 

commercially. Eucalyptus is a preferred fiber source for 

the global pulp and paper industry.

Q. What is ArborGen’s intended purpose for these 

eucalyptus hybrids?

A. According to the applicant, genetically engineered 

(GE) cold tolerant eucalyptus would enable the production of this hardwood species for pulping and for biofuel 

applications in managed plantation forests in the southeastern United States.

Q. Has APHIS made a determination of nonregulated 

status for a GE organism with a cold tolerant trait 

before?

A. No. This is the first GE organism with such a trait 

reviewed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

ArborGen has not requested a determination of nonregulated status for its eucalyptus at this time.

Q. Are the eucalyptus hybrids currently under 

regulation?

A. Yes. ArborGen’s GE eucalyptus hybrids are currently 

under APHIS regulation.

Q. Why was an environmental assessment (EA) 

prepared for this hybrid?

A. APHIS prepared an EA to provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and analysis of any 

potential environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed release under permit of these GE eucalyptus 

trees.

Q. In what States are the controlled releases being 

held?

A. There are a total of 6 confined field site locations in 

the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and South 

Carolina encompassing a total of 14.7 acres.

Q. Are these locations different from those 

previously permitted by APHIS?

A. Yes. This EA covers some new sites relative to 

earlier releases.

Q. Wasn’t APHIS previously sued over its field 

trials of GE eucalyptus?

A. Yes. On July 1, 2010, several environmental groups 

sued APHIS to block authorization of field trials of GE 

eucalyptus, alleging various violations of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 

Act.

Q. What was the outcome of the litigation?

A. On October 6, 2011, the Court ruled in USDA’s favor 

on all counts, finding that APHIS’ EA was fully sufficient.

Q. Is a permit required before a GE organism is 

introduced?

A. Yes. A permit must be obtained or a notification 

acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. APHIS’ regulations for GE organisms set forth 

the permit application requirements and the notification 

procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or 

release in the environment of regulated articles.

United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
financial statements of Technical Environment Solutions, Inc., for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> DM

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.95
<CASH>                                         428,328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     60,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               601,108
<PP&E>                                         627,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                 317,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,172,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,218,243
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,700,152
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,176,079)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,172,316
<SALES>                                      1,177,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,177,179
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  671,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,487,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,028,098)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,028,098)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.5


 


Summary of Terms of Verbal Lease with Sona Mobile Holdings Corp.


 


	
  Parties:

  	
  Sona
  Mobile Holdings Corp. (landlord) and Fairground Media LLC (tenant).

  
	
  Scope:

  	
  Sona
  Mobile Holdings Corp. leased approximately 1,000 square feet of office space
  in Boulder, CO to Fairground Media.

  
	
  Rent:

  	
  $2,000/month.

  
	
  Term:

  	
  Month-to-month,
  beginning in August 2007 and ending in December 2007 when
  Fairground Media terminated the lease and vacated the premises.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28022-28023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation


 Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States (Targeted States 
Program)

    Announcement Type: Modification--Competitive Cooperative 
Agreements.
    This announcement modifies the Request for Application Notice 
published in the Federal Register, March 14, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 49, 
Pages 11839-11846). The Dates and Summary portions have been modified.
    CFDA Number: 10.458.

DATES: Applications are due 5 p.m. EDT, June 4, 2007.
SUMMARY: The following paragraph has been added to the beginning of the

[[Page 28023]]

Summary portion of the March 14, 2007, Federal Register Notice:
    The Risk Management Agency (RMA) did not receive complete and valid 
application packages for the State of Maine under the original Request 
for Application Notice published in the Federal Register on March 14, 
2007, for the Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States Program 
(Targeted States Program). RMA is re-announcing its Funding 
Opportunity--Request for Applications under the Targeted States Program 
for the State of Maine. Applicants who previously submitted an 
application under the March 14, 2007, Targeted States Program Request 
for Applications Notice for Maine must reapply in accordance with the 
original Notice published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2007.
    All other portions and sections of the full text Notice remain 
unchanged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested 
parties are encouraged to contact: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone: 202-
720-5265, fax: 202-690-3605, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cdec1cda2dee5ffe7a1c9e8ccfee1eda2f9ffe8eda2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e6c737f106c574d55137b5a7e4c535f104b4d5a5f10595148">[email protected]</span></a>. You may 
also obtain information regarding this announcement from the RMA Web 
site at: http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements/.

    Signed in Washington, DC on May 11, 2007.
Eldon Gould,
Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
 [FR Doc. E7-9561 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Southern de México, S.A. de
C.V. (the registrant);
 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 consolidated 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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):
   /s/ Michael W. UpchurchMichael W. UpchurchFebruary 11, 2010
    Chief Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer)