alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION
-------------

I, Scott Thornock, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nicklebys.com, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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  quarterly  report is being
     prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
     procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  Presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
     effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation, 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  in the design or  operation  of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the  registrant's  ability to record,
     process,  summarize and report  financial data and have  identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
     employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the  registrant's  internal
     controls; and

6.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 25, 2003

/s/ Scott Thornock
-----------------------
Scott Thornock
President and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53354-53355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27111]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Reclearance of an 
Information Collection: Standard Forms 2803 and 3108

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for reclearance of an information collection. Form 
2803, Application to Make Deposit or Redeposit (CSRS), and SF 3108, 
Application to Make Service Credit Payment for Civilian Service (FERS), 
are applications to make payment used by persons who are eligible to 
pay for Federal service which was not subject to retirement deductions 
and/or for Federal service which was subject to retirement deductions 
which were subsequently refunded to the applicant.
    There are approximately 520 respondents for SF 2803 and 260 
respondents for SF 3108. It takes approximately 30 minutes to complete 
SF 2803 and 30 minutes to complete SF 3108. The hourly annual burden 
for SF 2803 is 260 and for SF 3108 is 130 for a total annual burden of 
390 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on:

--Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and 
whether it will have practical utility;
--Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is 
accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
--Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, through use of the appropriate 
technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e882858e899a9a8786a8879885c68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="503a3d363122223f3e103f203d7e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>


[[Page 53355]]


DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief 
Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 97-27111 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of-- ) 

) 

Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W564KV-17-P-0189 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61406 

Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq. 

Suzanne Sumner, Esq. 

Erin R. Davis, Esq. 

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

Dayton, OH 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Jere my D. Burkhart, J A 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this Rule 12.2 appeal with prejudice, 

representing that the parties "have come to a mutually acceptable settlement." 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 23 January 2018 

ALEXANDER Y 

Administrative Judg 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61406, Appeal of Sterling Medical 

Associates, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 10.1 Translated From Japanese  Request for Loan with Draft Loan (Change) [Notice of Applicable Interest Rate Period] Application date: April 24, 2008 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation
 Address
        11F NishiShinjuku Showa Building
 13-12 NishiShinjuku 1 cho-me, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo
 Name
        IA Partners, Inc.
 President& CEO
        Hideki Anan
  Having confirmed the following conditions, I do hereby submit a request to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation for loan with draft loan service (change) as outlined below. If you consent, please deposit the applicable amount to my (the applicants) account. If this request is the request for change and rejected after your judgment, I will not object. If I apply market rate for basic interest rate, I notify applicable interest rate period here.  Amount
        100,000,000 yenUse
        Operating fundsDesired date of deposit
        April 30, 2008
        Expected date of final repayment
        June 19, 2008
  Payment details
        Payment cycle
        Payment date
        Number of payments
        Amount repaidmonths
        of each month
        times
        YenYenYenYenFinal due date
        
        100,000,000 yenMethod of interest payment
        Lump sum paymentHandling of bank holidays
        In the event that one of the dates above falls on a bank holiday, the payment shall be made on the following business day.
  Basic interest rate
        □  Short-term prime rate
        Applicable interest rate
        3.00% APR□Applicable interest rate period
        In the event that the applicable interest rate period is divided within the borrowing period and rates are adjusted accordingly:Starts:
Ends:
        1. Rates automatically adjusted on theeverymonths.
2. Notification made each time with Notice of Applicable Interest Rate Period.
  ------------------------------------------- For Bank Use ---------------------------------------------------------  Branch No.
        Branch Name
        Process for Final Date
        Decision (Approved / Not Approved)
        Verification
        Verification
        Person in Charge
        Transaction copy check
        Loan seal check0223
        Nakano Branch
        Manager
        Section Chief
        Person in Charge
 Loan Acct. No.
        Activity No.
        □ Automatic transfer2000350
        0400017
        □ ID check
Exhibit 32.2 - Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)

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


In connection with the Annual Report of RPM Advantage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
thereof (the "Report").

I, David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 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 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
                     result of operations of the Company.

/s/ David R. Pressler
--------------------------
    David R. Pressler
    CEO President and Director


Date  April 25, 2011
      -----------------
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40726

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELEE CAMPOS CAMARGO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(7:99-CR-470-ALL)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elee Campos Camargo appeals from his jury-trial conviction for

one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 89.4

kilograms of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and

846. Camargo claims the court erred, pursuant to United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This claim is not moot because he is

serving a term of supervised release. See United States v.

Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[S]upervised release,
2

while a form of post-imprisonment supervision, is still considered

to be a component of the defendant’s total sentence”.).

Camargo claims his constitutional rights were violated when

the district court assessed a two-level firearm increase, pursuant

to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on judiciallydetermined facts. His Presentence Investigation Report and

sentencing objections sufficiently apprised the court he was making

a Sixth Amendment objection to being sentenced based on facts not

found by a jury. United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th

Cir. 2005); see United States v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir.

2005). The increase violated Camargo’s Sixth Amendment right to a

trial by jury, and the Government has not met its burden of

demonstrating the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285-86 (5th Cir. 2005).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
#### Queen V. ROLLE, Petitioner, v. CEDARS OF LEBANON HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents.

No. 39311.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
From: Ryan Parker [mailto:rparker@endicott.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:53 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing MACT - Endicott supplemental 

information

Ms. Nizich,

I am following-up on my letter of September 4, 2015, that addressed my concerns over the no 

visible emission requirement as proposed in the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing 

MACT, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. In furthering the details of my letter I wanted to let 

you know that based on our recent stack test we comply with the PM limit as proposed for existing 

sources. In addition, we have personnel that are trained and certified in Method 9 and our kiln 

stack test readings have been at or below 10%. 

Regards, 

Ryan Parker

Ryan L. Parker | President & CEO

P.O. Box 17 | Fairbury, NE 68352

PH: 402-729-3315 FAX: 402-729-5804

BRICK • THIN BRICK • PAVERS • TILE | endicott.com 

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing 

electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the 

reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 

received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 133]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ133.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 1320]]

Public Law 104-133
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to 
 extend for two months the authority for promulgating regulations under 
            the Act. <<NOTE:  Apr. 25, 1996 -  [H.R. 3034]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.

    Section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``18 
months'' and inserting ``20 months''.

    Approved April 25, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3034:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Apr. 16, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 18, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Mr. Dallas Cormier, SD1173 San Diego Gas & Electric, Sempra Energy

101 Ash Street San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Mr. Cormier:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from §§ 91.9(b)(2), 91.203(a), and 91.203(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your December 20, 2013, exemption request on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric into the public docket (No. FAA-2013-1127), 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 the following:

 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. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. 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) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thuy Cooper Acting Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit
23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 Board of
Directors and Shareholders
 Merge
Healthcare Incorporated
 Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-34884, 333-100104, 333-107997, 333-40832, 333-40882, 333-107991,
333-125386) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-125603) of Merge Healthcare Incorporated of
our report dated March 11, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial
statements which appear in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 /s/ BDO Seidman,
LLP
 Chicago,
Illinois
 March 11,
2009
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 8, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0428

Lower Tribunal No. F20-17755

________________

Dexter Ettienne-Modeste, Jr.,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, 

Judge.

Dexter Ettienne-Modeste, Jr., in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.

The following is a list
of the subsidiaries of Shiloh Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Corporation). The common stock of all the corporations listed below is wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by the Corporation. If indented, the Corporation is
a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporation under which it is listed unless otherwise noted.



|                                                       |  |                      
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|NAME OF CORPORATION                                    |  | STATE OFINCORPORATION
|Shiloh Corporation                                     |  | Ohio                 
|The Sectional Die Company                              |  | Ohio                 
|Sectional Stamping, Inc.                               |  | Ohio                 
|Medina Blanking, Inc.(1)                               |  | Ohio                 
|Liverpool Coil Processing, Incorporated                |  | Ohio                 
|VCS Properties, LLC                                    |  | Ohio                 
|Greenfield Die & Manufacturing Corp.                   |  | Michigan             
|Shiloh Incorporated                                    |  | Michigan             
|C & H Design Company                                   |  | Michigan             
|Jefferson Blanking Inc.                                |  | Georgia              
|Shiloh Automotive, Inc.                                |  | Ohio                 
|Shiloh de Mexico S.A. de C.V.(2)                       |  | Mexico               
|Shiloh Internacional S.A. de C.V.(3)                   |  | Mexico               
|Shiloh Industries, Inc. Dickson Manufacturing Division |  | Tennessee            



|(1) | Medina Blanking, Inc. is 22% owned by the Corporation and 78% owned by Shiloh Corporation.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Shiloh de Mexico S.A. de C.V. is owned 100% by the Corporation.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Shiloh Internacional S.A. de C.V. is owned 98% by the Corporation and 2% by Shiloh de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Appellant, v. Bernard ACOSTA, Appellee.

No. 69-466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.