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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Donald Lynn Collins certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Collins Industries, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(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 controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (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 control over financial reporting.





|Dated: | September 7, 2004 | /s/ Donald Lynn Collins       
|------ | ----------------- | ------------------------------
|       |                   | Donald Lynn Collins, President
|       |                   | and Chief Executive Officer
DWS VARIABLE SERIES I

   SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF THE LISTED PORTFOLIO:

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

                                  DWS Bond VIP

Ian Winship no longer serves as Co-Manager of the  above-listed  portfolio.  All
references to Mr. Winship are hereby deleted.


















               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference


                                                          [DWS INVESTMENTS LOGO]
                                                             Deutsche Bank Group

September 8, 2008
VS-3611
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of China Hydroelectric Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liya Chen, 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 my knowledge:

 

(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.

 
| Date: April 18, 2013 |       |                                 |
|---------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|
|                      |       |                                 |
|                      | By:        | /s/ Liya Chen                        |
| ** **                | ** ** | **Name: Liya Chen**                  |
| ** **                | ** ** | **Title: Chief Financial   Officer** |

 

----
#### STATE ex rel. James Edward HILL, Jr. v. Harold M. TERRY, Sheriff of Caddo Parish.

No. 60760.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: James Edward Hill, Jr. applying for writs of habeas corpus.

Not considered — The petitioner did not present a claim for relief to the trial court. In addition, the petitioner’s appeal is pending in this Court, docket No. 60175 and is set for argument on November 21, 1977.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30,
2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David B. Golub, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.



|                       |  | /S/    David B. Golub   | 
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|Name:                  |  | David B. Golub          | 
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer | 
|                       | 
|Date: December 3, 2013 |
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.36 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

 Instrument Amending the Treaty of 

November 9, 1982 Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Rome May 3, 2006 

with 

Annex 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 ITALY 

 Mutual Legal Assistance 

Instrument amending the treaty of November 9, 1982. 

Signed at Rome May 3, 2006; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-13, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at Rome 

 May 28, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated July 29, 1997, and published in the Federal 
Register on August 26, 1997, (62 FR 45272), Novartis Pharmaceuticals 
Corp., 59 Route 10, East Hanover, New Jersey 07936, made application by 
letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as 
a bulk manufacturer of methylphenidate (1724) a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Novartis 
Pharmaceuticals Corp. to manufacture methylphenidate is consistent with 
the public interest at this time. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 
Sec. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above is 
granted.

    Dated: November 6, 1997.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29973 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50200 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AGUSTIN MARTINEZ-GARZA, also known as Tino Garza, also known as Augustin Martinez, also known as Augstin Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-467-ALL

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Agustin MartinezGarza raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of and for the period(s) covered in the  Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 5, 2009 |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Colleen A. Zuhl     |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Colleen      A. Zuhl         |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer |

----

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1475** 

CHARLES ALFORD, III , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MARTIN & GASS, INC.; SAMUEL G. GASS; ANGLER CONSTRUCTION CO., L.L.C. , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 00595

- LMB

- TRJ )

Submitted : July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Charles Alford, III, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Pierce, KASIMER & ANNINO, PC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles Alford, III, appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to reopen the case . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Alford v. Martin & Gass,
Inc. , No. 1:08

- cv - 00595

- LMB

- TRJ (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the de cisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Reuben SORKIN, Appellant, v. Sol ROVIN, Appellee.

No. 69-156.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 28, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1969.

Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Spiegel, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether reversible error was committed by the order dismissing Count Two of the plaintiff’s amended complaint.

The order granting the motion to dismiss Count Two was not “with prejudice” and did not deny plaintiff Sorkin the right to amend. Thus, we are faced only with the question as to whether Count Two of the amended complaint stated a cause of action for relief against the defendant Rovin.

Count Two alleged, inter alia, that Sor-kin purchased from Rovin “the Bermuda House Apartments located at 1160 N. W. North River Drive, Miami, Florida.” There is no allegation that Sorkin purchased the realty on which the apartments were located or as to whether the purchase was by oral or written contract or by warranty, special or quit claim deed.

Sorkin alleged that Rovin constructed “a portion of the seawall” and that he “warranted that the sea wall was of good quality and well constructed.”

This allegation of warranty was construed by the trial court in its order to be for “breach of general implied warranty.” On appeal Sorkin argues that it is an express warranty. It is impossible to tell from the amended complaint whether the allegation was for breach of implied or an express oral or written warranty.

The defendant Rovin argues that implied warranties do not attach to a conveyance of real property. See Druid Homes, Inc. v. Cooper, 1961, 272 Ala. 415, 131 So.2d 884; Steiber v. Palumbo, 1959, 219 Or. 479, 347 P.2d 978, 78 A.L.R.2d 440; and Hoye v. Century Builders, 1958, 52 Wash.2d 830, 329 P.2d 474.

Alternatively, Rovin argues that if Count Two of the amended complaint alleged an express warranty agreement prior to the sale of real estate, the warranty merged into the deed and that no action *493lies for breach of express warranties other than those contained in the deed. Cf. Milu, Inc. v. Duke, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 31.

At this state of procedure, it is not necessary to rule on either of these arguments.

F.R.C.P. 1.110(b), 30 F.S.A. requires in part “a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

We hold that Count Two of the amended complaint failed to allege sufficient “ultimate facts” to state a cause of action against the defendant. It may be that the plaintiff Sorkin could have amended Count Two to have sufficiently stated a cause of action upon which relief could have been granted. He was never denied this right by the trial court.

For these reasons the order herein challenged is

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LEELAND BARNHART,

Petitioner

v.

SUPERINTENDANT [SIC] WINGARD (S.C.I. SOMERSET): PENNSYLVANIA

BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (A.D.A. BRIANA VANATA),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 46 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of August

, 2017, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. See

Commonwealth v. Ali , 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (explaining that hybrid representation is

improper). The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record.
#### Diane HICKS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent.

No. KK-231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 25, 1978.

Diane Hicks, in pro per.

Jon W. Searcy, District Legal Counsel, Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, De Funiak Springs, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus and response having been considered, the petition is DENIED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
#### TERRENCE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Ben L. HARRISON and Yvonne Harrison, Appellees.

No. 73-1394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1974.

Snyder, Young, Stern & Tannenbaum and Gary B. Sack and Joseph Teichman, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick and John R. Kelso, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a partial summary judgment for eviction of tenant.

Plaintiff-appellees brought suit in county court against the defendant-appellants for statutory removal of tenant. Appellants counterclaimed for specific performance and other relief, claiming ownership in the *70property involved in this case as a result of a written or oral contract to convey plus partial performance and/or improvements to the realty. Appellants thereafter moved to transfer the entire cause to circuit court, because the equitable counterclaims were not within the county court’s jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, and transferred the cause. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the appellees upon their petition for removal of tenant. The court deferred ruling upon the disputed questions of ownership and the appellees’ entitlement to back rent, until such time as further proceedings were held thereon.

We have considered the record on appeal, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, the partial summary judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Writ of Mandamus is DISMISSED; Opinion Filed September 13, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01098

- CV
IN RE BEAZER HOMES T EXAS, L.P. , Relator
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 12

- 07002A


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Myers Opinion by Justice Myers Before the Court is relator = s motion to withdraw petition for writ of mandamus. According t o relator, the parties have resolved the dispute and “the relief sought from this Court is no longer necessary

. ” The Court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, we DISMISS relator = s petition for writ of mandamus.

131098F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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 Respect Your Universe, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Craig Brod, Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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.
 
 
 Date: April 30, 2013
/s/ Craig BrodCraig Brod,

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 China Du Kang Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 (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/  Liu Su YingLiu Su YingChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)September  30, 2011
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of ZST Digital Networks, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.