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




**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**





I, Kirk W. Morton, President and Chief Executive Officer of Key Technology, Inc., certify that:




1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004 of Key Technology, Inc. (the registrant);




2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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(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)) 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;




(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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and;




5. The registrant's other certifying officer(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):




(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 controls over financial reporting.




Date:  December 17, 2004




/s/ Kirk W. Morton


Kirk W. Morton


President and Chief Executive Officer
259 La. 63

#### Dorothy M. ROWLEY v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al.

No. 51497.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1971.

In re: Dorothy M. Rowley applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 247 So.2d 135.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
# L_2005267EN.01002401.xml

| 12.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 267/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 267/24

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 September 2005

concerning the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union

(2005/702/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 300(2), first subparagraph, and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the 2003 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, was signed on behalf of the European Community and its Member States on 20 December 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, was signed on behalf of the European Community and its Member States on 20 December 2004.

| (2) | The Protocol should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Protocol should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.

The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision (2).

Done at Brussels, 20 September 2005.

For the Council

The President

M. BECKETT

---

(1)  Assent delivered on 23 February 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 31, 4.2.2005, p. 31.

2

---
**EXHIBIT 32**  **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO** 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Elite Information Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) for the three month period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li Kin Shing, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)

                    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)

                    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  Date:  October 15, 2008

                    By /s/ Li Kin ShingLi Kin ShingPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 15(a).1

Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80802), pertaining Taro
Vit Industries Limited 1991 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-13840) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123888), pertaining to the Taro
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report
dated March 16, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. included in this Annual
Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

|Tel Aviv,
      Israel |  | Kost, Forer,
      Gabbay & Kasierer  
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|March 16,
      2007   |  | A Member of
      Ernst & Young Global

---
# L_2005326EN.01003901.xml

| 13.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 326/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 326/39

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 9 December 2005

releasing Cyprus and Malta from the obligation to apply Council Directive 2002/54/EC on the marketing of beet seed

(notified under document number C(2005) 4756)

(Only the Greek and Maltese texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/886/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/54/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of beet seed (1), and in particular Article 30a thereof,

Having regard to the requests submitted by Cyprus and Malta,

Whereas:

| (1) | Directive 2002/54/EC sets out certain provisions for the marketing of beet seed. This Directive also provides that, subject to certain conditions, Member States may be wholly or partly released from the obligation to apply this Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Directive 2002/54/EC sets out certain provisions for the marketing of beet seed. This Directive also provides that, subject to certain conditions, Member States may be wholly or partly released from the obligation to apply this Directive.

| (2) | Seed of beet is not normally reproduced or marketed in Cyprus and Malta. In addition, the growing of beet is of minimal economic importance in the abovementioned countries. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Seed of beet is not normally reproduced or marketed in Cyprus and Malta. In addition, the growing of beet is of minimal economic importance in the abovementioned countries.

| (3) | As long as those conditions remain, the relevant Member States should be released from the obligation to apply the provisions of Directive 2002/54/EC to the material in question. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

As long as those conditions remain, the relevant Member States should be released from the obligation to apply the provisions of Directive 2002/54/EC to the material in question.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Cyprus and Malta are hereby released from the obligation to apply Directive 2002/54/EC, with the exception of Article 20.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 12. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/117/EC (OJ L 14, 18.1.2005, p. 18).

1

---
#### Eileen M. BRENNAN, Petitioner, v. PAUL BARABAS INTERIORS, Respondent.

No. 77-2612.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1978.

James V. Dolan of Dolan, Denman & Gramling, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We find that the petitioner, Eileen M. Brennan, did not receive timely notice of a hearing to determine her right to unemployment compensation benefits. After her counsel filed a notice of appearance and a written request that any notice of hearing be directed to counsel, the Department of Commerce scheduled a hearing without notifying counsel. A copy of the notice was sent to the petitioner’s home address, but it is undisputed that the petitioner was away from her residence at the time the notice was sent through the time of the subsequent hearing. When a default order was received by the petitioner, her counsel sought a rehearing on the grounds set out above. The rehearing was denied. Since there was a written request for notice to counsel in the Department’s file at the time the notice was sent to the petitioner’s residence, we believe she is entitled to a new hearing. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted; and the decision of the Department of Commerce Board of Review is quashed with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALDERMAN, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54480-54481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27723]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (97-155)]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Technology and Commercialization 
Advisory Committee (TCAC); Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, 
Technology and Commercialization Advisory Committee.

DATES: November 5, 1997, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; November 6, 1997, 8:30 
a.m. to noon and 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Room MIC-7, 
300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gregory M. Reck, Code AF, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Washington, DC (202/358-4700).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:
    <bullet> NASA Enterprise Presentations
    <bullet> Review Status of Office of Chief Technologist
    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.


[[Page 54481]]


    Dated: October 14, 1997.
Alan M. Ladwig,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27723 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         60,974
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               84,140
<PP&E>                                         15,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 94,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,005,895
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      195,177
<OTHER-SE>                                (1,268,715)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   94,857
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 431,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            769,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,200,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,200,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,200,778)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.07)


</TABLE>
Fax: (304) 926-0446

May 21, 2008

Mr. Donald S. WelshRegional Administrator

U.S. EPA, Region III (3RAOO)

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Re: Final West Virginia State implementation Plan Revision to Meet Obligations Under Clean

Air Act Section 11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM25 NAAQS

Dear Administrator Welsh:

On behalf ofthe State of West Virginia, I am herein submitting a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to satisfy state obligations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section

11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). The SIP revision includes appropriate documentation which demonstrates that state

and federal administrative procedural requirements have been fulfilled, including public notice.

This SIP revision addresses those requirements of Section 11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the CAA

that have not been addressed in other SIP revisions. It is a compilation of certain elements that

demonstrate how the eight-hour ozone and fine particulate NAAQS are being implemented,

maintained and enforced in West Virginia. The elements of this SIP revision provide a federally

enforceable written confirmation of how West Virginia will continue to comply with the Section

1 l0(a)(2) requirements of the CAA.

Promoting a healthy environment.
Sincerely,

Randy C. Huffman

Cabinet Secretary

RCH/j imEnclosure
#### Lewis H. WILSON, Petitioner, v. Eleanor P. WILSON, Respondent.

No. 44229.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 893.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### George T. ESKRIDGE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50547.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 8, 1978.

Alma C. Campbell, Greenwood, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Order filed, November 28, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01017-CV

____________

HDG, LTD D/B/A HUNTON DISTRIBUTION, Appellant

V.

KELLY BLASCHKE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-38838

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 26, 2018. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Jackson, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### Lee Frank COLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-596.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1970.

William J. Switalski, of Switalski & Lazzara, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Falcon v. State, Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 399.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Peter MANISCALCO v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5956.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 13, 1936.

Joseph R. Roach, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Earle C. Hurley, of Chicago, 111., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel, and this cause now comes on to be heard on the printed record and briefs of counsel and on oral argument.

On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3263 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3263

 To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the 
         Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 2023

 Mrs. Britt (for herself and Mr. Tuberville) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the 
         Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Poarch Band of Creek Indians Parity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT TO THE POARCH BAND 
              OF CREEK INDIANS.

    (a) In General.--The Poarch Band of Creek Indians shall be 
considered ``now under Federal jurisdiction'' as of June 18, 1934, for 
purposes of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ``Indian 
Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 5101 et 
seq.).
    (b) Lands Taken Into Trust.--All lands taken into trust by the 
United States for the benefit of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians 
before the date of enactment of this Act are reaffirmed as trust land, 
and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking those lands 
into trust under the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the 
``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 
5101 et seq.), are ratified and confirmed.
                                 <all>
```
254 La. 925

#### Andrew ROUGHT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50225.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Andrew Rought applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory or original jurisdiction in this case.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion that the application and returns warrant the order*484ing of a hearing on the application for writ of habeas corpus. No counsel at arraignment (reflected in minutes) allegation that counsel was not seen until day of trial, and record reflecting a denial of a motion to suppress as being untimely filed require a hearing for the determination of the merits of the application.
No. 00-7074.

#### Ruffin *v.*Chapman, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Annual Report of Key Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David M. Camp,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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.





/s/  David M.
Camp


David M.
Camp


President
and Chief Executive Officer


December
12, 2008