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

CERTIFICATION

I, James G. Gidwitz, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Continental MaterialsCorporation;

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

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and materials weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: August 15, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/ James G. Gidwitz      |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | James G. Gidwitz          |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board and |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Conolog Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the
Report), we, Robert S. Benou Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company and Marc Benou, the Chief Operating Officer, President and Secretary 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 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Conolog Corporation and will be retained by Conolog Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

|Dated: June 11, 2007 |  |  | /s/ Robert Benou                               
|-------------------- |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | Name: Robert Benou                             
|                     |  |  | Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
|                     |  |  | Financial Officer and Treasurer                
|                    
|                    
|Dated: June 11, 2007 |  |  | /s/ Marc Benou                                 
|                     |  |  | Name: Marc Benou                               
|                     |  |  | Title: Chief Operating Officer, President and  
|                     |  |  | Secretary                                      

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### William STACY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-298.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 17, 1970.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

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

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence from the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Florida. The public defender filed an “Anders type” brief1 wherein he stated that there was no merit to the appeal and that the appeal was frivolous. He then requested permission to withdraw as attorney of record in this matter.

This court issued an order on April 16, 1970 directing the public defender to serve a copy of the brief *and*a copy of the order on the appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested. The order allowed the public defender fifteen days in which to serve said brief and order and provided that the appellant would have thirty days from receipt of said order in which to file his brief or bring to this court’s attention any matter he wished this court to consider. *See*Leone v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 404; Daniels v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 405.

Appellant’s attorney has certified to this court that a copy of the brief has been furnished to appellant but he did not certify that a copy of this court’s order allowing *190appellant thirty days within which to file his own brief had been served on the appellant. Thus it is indicated that a material step required by our order in this appeal has been omitted.

We therefore direct that appellant be served by certified, return-receipt mail a copy of the order of April 16, 1970 forthwith, and that appellant’s attorney file a certificate of service in this court, setting forth the date of delivery of the April 16 order.

It is so ordered.

MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64578-64579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-19-008]


Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 26, 1997, Mojave Pipeline Company 
(Mojave) tendered a letter for acceptance by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission), in compliance with the Commission's 
order dated August 6, 1997 at Docket No. RP97-19-006.
    Mojave states that the August 6 order required it to file revised 
tariff sheets no later than December 1, 1997 submitting its own pro 
forma trading partner agreement (TPA) or adopting the GISB model TPA. 
Mojave states that it will

[[Page 64579]]

continue to use its pro forma TPA accepted by the August 6 order and 
that no tariff revisions are required at this time.
    Mojave states that copies of the filing were served upon all 
parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the 
requirements of Section 385.2010 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31984 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63928-63929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31641]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-705-001]


Promark Energy, Inc., Notice of Filing

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1997, Promark Energy, Inc. tendered 
for filing its compliance filing in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before December 5, 1997. Protests will 
be

[[Page 63929]]

considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31641 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### PACIFIC INDEMNITY CO., a corporation, Walter C. Bauder and W. S. Badcock Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Charles F. DOSSEY and Maude E. Dossey, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 70-648.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 7, 1971.

Kingswood Sprott, Jr., of Langston & Massey, Lakeland, for appellants.

James M. McEwen, of Gibbons, Tucker, McEwen, Smith, Cofer & Taub, Tampa, for appellees.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellants appeal a final judgment entered against them in a personal injury action. The sole point relied upon by appellants for reversal is that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the introduction into evidence of a deposition of one Dr. John V. Verner.

Dr. Verner’s deposition consisted of the results of certain psychological tests given the appellee, Mrs. Dossey, by persons other than Dr. Verner. Dr. Verner testified that the laboratory tests administered to Mrs. Dossey were “not foolproof, it’s only a crude estimate at best and it’s meant to be used by the examining physician if he thinks it fits with his observations, then he uses it; if he doesn’t think it is, he throws it out.” Neither of the examining physicians that testified in the cause mentioned the use of these tests.

*589We think that the trial court was eminently correct in denying the introduction into evidence of the deposition of Dr. Verner.

Even assuming that the deposition should have been admitted into evidence, such error in the instant case would be harmless error as the opinion of Dr. Ver-ner as to Mrs. Dossey’s condition was merely cumulative of the opinion of Dr. Jackson who testified in the cause.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. L, and LILES, J., concur.
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 filing of amendment no. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Corning Natural Gas Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2008 (the "Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael I. German, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and I, Firouzeh Sarhangi, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

Dated:  February 10, 2009



|/s/ MICHAEL I. GERMAN
|---------------------

Michael I. German, Chief Executive Officer and President









|/s/ FIROUZEH SARHANGI
|---------------------

Firouzeh Sarhangi, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 34.2




KPMG LLP

303 East Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601-5212





Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board of Directors


Citibank, N.A.:




We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Appendix I, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)- 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.




Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.




In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 is fairly stated, in all material respects.








/s/ KPMG LLP






Chicago, Illinois


February 28, 2011






KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership, the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
<TABLE>
                           Exhibit 11
                Computation of Per Share Earnings
  For the three and six months ended June 28, 1997 and June 29,
                              1996
                           (Unaudited)
            (000's omitted except per share amounts)
                                
<CAPTION>                                
                                   Three Months Ended    Six Months Ended
                                   June 28,   June 29,  June 28,  June 29,
                                    1997       1996      1997       1996
<S>                                <C>       <C>        <C>        <C>
Primary Earnings Per Share:                                               
                                                                          
Net Income                         $  1,020  $  1,368   $     978  $     791
                                                                           
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:                                       
                                                                           
Common Shares                         1,104     1,104       1,104      1,107
Common Stock Equivalents                 30        10          29          6
                                      1,134     1,114       1,133      1,113
                                                                           
Primary Earnings Per Share         $    .90  $   1.23   $     .86  $     .71
                                                                           
                                                                           
Fully Diluted Income Per Share:                                            
                                                                           
Net Income                         $  1,020  $  1,368   $     978  $     791
                                                                           
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:                                        
                                                                           
Common Shares                         1,104     1,104       1,104      1,107
Common Stock Equivalents                 32        10          32          9
  Total                               1,136     1,114       1,136      1,116
                                                                           
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share   $    .90  $   1.23   $     .86  $     .71
                                                        
</TABLE>
                                
                                
   Notes:
   Primary and fully diluted amounts are not reflected on the
   face of the Consolidated Statements of Operations and
   Retained Earnings because they differ from basic earnings
   per share by less than 3%.  Therefore, basic earnings per
   share are presented on the face of the statements.
256 La. 893

#### SURPLUS UNDERWRITERS, INC. v. Mr. William M. SIMMONS, d/b/a Simmons & Associates and Lively’s Welding and Equipment Company, Inc.

No. 50791.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Surplus Underwriters, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 236 So.2d 530.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ernest L. THOMAS.

No. 61253.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., dissents.
256 La. 792

#### Joseph A. MAGGIO v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DRIVERS LICENSE DIVISION.

No. 50704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1970.

In re: Joseph A. Maggio applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State Civil Service Commission. 234 So.2d 844.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the Court of Appeal judgment.
#### Frederick D. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary WATKINS; Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-1081.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 26, 2002.

Before SEYMOUR, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th *303Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Frederick D. Thomas, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree murder and two counts of aggravated robbery in July 1997. On September 18, 1997, the trial court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to seventy years in prison. He did not file a direct appeal. On February 15, 2000, Thomas filed a motion for state post-conviction relief alleging his counsel was ineffective and his plea was involuntary. The trial court denied the motion. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial on October 11, 2001, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari.

On November 28, 2001, Thomas filed his federal habeas petition asserting he was denied due process because his counsel was ineffective and his plea was involuntary. The district court dismissed the action, finding that Thomas’ petition was barred by the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) because more than two years had elapsed between the date his conviction became final and the date he filed his motion for state post-conviction relief. We have examined the record on appeal and Thomas’ filings with this court. We conclude that Thomas’ action is barred for substantially the same reasons as stated in the district court’s order dated February 6, 2002.

As petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), we DENY a certificate of appealability, DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and DISMISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.