alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBITS 99.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Edward A. Keible, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Endwave Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





|1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit [99.1] (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|2. |  | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated: August 14, 2002





/s/    EDWARD A. KEIBLE,
JR.Edward A. Keible, Jr. Chief
Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT

 

The Board of DirectorsDatalink Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-93229) on Form S-8 andRegistration Statement (No. 333-96901) on Form S-3 of Datalink Corporation ofour reports dated February 7, 2003, with respect to the balance sheet ofDatalink Corporation as of December 31, 2002, and the related statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, andthe related financial statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 2002,which reports appear in the  December31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Datalink Corporation.

 

Our report refers to our audit of the disclosures added to revise the2001 financial statements to include the transitional disclosures required byStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*, which was adopted bythe Company as of January 1, 2002. However, we were not engaged to audit,review, or apply any procedures to the 2001 financial statements of DatalinkCorporation, other than with respect to such disclosures.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP           |   |
|------------------------|--------|
|                   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| March 20, 2003         |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Harry E. Gruber, M.D., President and Chief
Executive Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006                 
|                                     
|/s/ Harry E. Gruber, M.D.            
|Harry E. Gruber, M.D.                
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
No. 56708.

protests 974987-G, etc. (New York).

#### Federal Wine & Liquor Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Carey *&*Skinner, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7657.

Invoices dated Toronto, Canada, June 2, 1947, etc.

Certified June 2, 1947, etc.

Entered at Buffalo, N. Y., June 10, 1947, etc.

Entry No. 11385, etc.

(Decided February 4, 1949)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A”,*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached *394schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in O. J. Tower *&*Sons *v.*United States, R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6122

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ABU ASHONTE ALI, a/k/a Marty Boldin, a/k/a

Marty Boldwin,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-95-31, CA-98-982-2)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abu Ashonte Ali, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Abu Ashonte Ali seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure seeking to vacate the order denying his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Ali’s

motion was a second or successive § 2255 motion and he did not seek

authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244, 2255.

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
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 the quarterly report of Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David M. Barnes, CFO and Principal Financial and Accounting 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/ David M. Barnes
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  David M. Barnes
                                                  Chief Financial Officer and
                                                  Principal Financial and
                                                  Accounting Officer

                                                  February 7, 2007
EERE Information Center

Programs and Offices

DATE: February 11, 2010

TIME: 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. EST

LOCATION:

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 8E-089

Washington, DC 20585

Erratum to the WICF NOPR

document

DOE has noted a typographical error

in Appendix A for Equation 3-29 and

Equation 3-34. A replacement is

provided here. (PDF 118 KB)

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Walk-In Coolers and

Walk-In Freezers Test

Procedure Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking Public

Meeting

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is

publishing a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NOPR) for the test procedure

rulemaking for walk-in coolers and walk-in

freezers (WICF). The NOPR is the first

document to be published in the test

procedure rulemaking process. It will be

followed by a final rule. At the NOPR stage,

DOE proposes the procedures to be used to

test WICF equipment for certification,

compliance, and enforcement of the energy

conservation standards. Interested parties

are invited to review the NOPR, attend

public meetings, and submit comments on

DOE's approach.

Energy Conservation Program: Test

Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and

Walk-In Freezers, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (PDF 544 KB) Download

Adobe Reader.

How to Submit Comments

Interested parties may submit comments

electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Walk-In Coolers and ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

1 of 2 1/4/2010 10:16 AM

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.002
or courier. Comments should clearly

identify docket number EE-2008-

TP-0014. The deadline for submitting

comments is 75 days after date of

publication in the Federal Register.

Wherever possible, comments in the

electronic format should carry the

electronic signature of the author. Absent

an electronic signature, comments

submitted electronically must be followed

and authenticated by submitting the signed

original paper document.

E-mail:

wicf-2008-tp-0014@ee.doe.gov

Include Docket Number EE-2008-

TP-0014 and/or RIN 1904-AB85

in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail:

Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Mailstop EE-2J

Washington, DC 20585

Please include a signed original.

Hand Delivery or Courier:

Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor

Washington, DC 20024

Telephone: 202-586-2945

Please include a signed original.

Contact Information

Charles Llenza

Project Manager

202-586-2192

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 12/29/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Walk-In Coolers and ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

2 of 2 1/4/2010 10:16 AM

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.002
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gregory
H. Laborde, Principal Executive Officer,  President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated: May 17, 2010


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREA DEE HOLLOWAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35908

D.C. No. 6:14-cv-01657-TC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2018** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: FISHER, N.R. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Andrea Holloway appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have

FILED

MAR 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Berry v. Astrue, 622

F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

1. The ALJ properly excluded conversion disorder or psychogenic dystonia. 

No “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” resulted in

a finding or diagnosis of this impairment. See Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002,

1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). 

2. The ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons for discrediting

Holloway’s testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms. See Smolen v.

Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). Even assuming the ALJ erred by

considering Holloway’s criminal history, see SSR 16-3p, 81 Fed. Reg. 14166,

14171, any error was harmless. 

3. The ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons that were supported by

substantial evidence for discrediting Dr. Dieter’s opinion. See Bayliss v. Barnhart,

427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041

(9th Cir. 2008) (“An ALJ may reject a treating physician's opinion if it is based ‘to

a large extent’ on a claimant's self-reports that have been properly discounted as

incredible.”) (citation omitted). 

2
4. The ALJ provided germane reasons for discrediting the testimony of

Thomas Miller, Holloway’s boyfriend, because his testimony was inconsistent with

the medical record. See Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1218.

5. The ALJ’s finding that jobs exist in significant numbers that Holloway

could perform was supported by substantial evidence. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at

1279. The ALJ was permitted to rely on the job testimony offered by the

vocational expert. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995).1

AFFIRMED.

1

 In light of our disposition, we need not address Holloway’s remaining

contentions regarding her 2008 applications. 

3
Exhibit 31.1

I, E.J. Holm, the principal executive officer of Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
     Transmission System, L.P.;

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 officers 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 changes 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 officers 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; 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: November 9, 2005

/S/ E.J. HOLM
--------------------
E.J. HOLM
PRESIDENT
MICHAEL ANTHONY PLANES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-2306

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 152 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure the availability of dual 

fueled automobiles and light duty trucks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. LUGAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure the availability of dual fueled automobiles and light duty trucks, 

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 ‘‘Dual Fuel Vehicle Act 

5 of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF DUAL FUELED 

7 AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 329 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 32902 

10 the following: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 152 IS

1 ‘‘§ 32902A. Requirement to manufacture dual fueled 

2 automobiles and light duty trucks 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For each model year listed in the 

4 following table, each manufacturer shall ensure that the 

5 percentage of automobiles and light duty trucks manufac6 tured by the manufacturer for sale in the United States 

7 that are dual fueled automobiles and light duty trucks is 

8 not less than the percentage set forth for that model year 

9 in the following table: 

‘‘Model Year Percentage 

Model years 2014 and 2015 ....................... 50 percent 

Model year 2016 and each subsequent 

model year.

90 percent. 

10 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

11 automobiles or light duty trucks that operate only on elec12 tricity.’’. 

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

14 for chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is amend15 ed by inserting after the item relating to section 32902 

16 the following: 

‘‘32902A. Requirement to manufacture dual fueled automobiles and light duty 

trucks.’’. 

17 (c) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 1 year after the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Trans19 portation shall prescribe regulations to carry out the 

20 amendments made by this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS