alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, each of the
undersigned officers of Rio Tinto plc, registered in England and Wales (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2011 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                 |  |                     |  |        |  |                 
|------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------
|/s/ Tom Albanese    |  |                 |  | /s/ Guy Elliott    
|Name:               |  | Tom Albanese    |  |                     |  | Name:  |  | Guy Elliott     
|Title:              |  | Chief executive |  |                     |  | Title: |  | Finance director
|                    |  |                
|Date: 15 March 2012 |  |                 |  | Date: 15 March 2012

The foregoing certification is not deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and not incorporated
by reference in any filing under the Securities Act.



---

Certification

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange
Act, each of the undersigned officers of Rio Tinto Limited, registered in Victoria, Australia, (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2011 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                 |  |                     |  |        |  |                 
|------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------
|/s/ Tom Albanese    |  |                 |  | /s/ Guy Elliott    
|Name:               |  | Tom Albanese    |  |                     |  | Name:  |  | Guy Elliott     
|Title:              |  | Chief executive |  |                     |  | Title: |  | Finance director
|                    |  |                
|Date: 15 March 2012 |  |                 |  | Date: 15 March 2012

The foregoing certification is not deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and not incorporated
by reference with any filing under the Securities Act.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors andShareholders 

Cascade Microtech, Inc.: 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-121964, 333-145353, 333-157058, 333-161297 and 333-168692), and Form S-3 (No. 333-145349) of CascadeMicrotech, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cascade Microtech, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010 and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Cascade Microtech, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Portland, Oregon

March 1, 2011
#### Helen RICHARDSON, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY and Florida Department of Commerce, Respondents, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 40568.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 29, 1971.

Dudley Burton, Miami, for petitioner, cross-respondent.

Richard J. Thornton, of Walton, Lan-taff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for respondent, cross-petitioner.

J. Franklin Garner and Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Tallahassee, for Industrial Relations Comm., respondent

*3PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari in this cause, and after hearing oral argument and upon consideration of the record we find that the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims is based on competent substantial evidence as required by U. S. Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla.1951). It was therefore error for the Industrial Relations Commission to reverse the same. Accordingly, the order of the Full Commission is quashed, with directions to reinstate the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN, DEKLE and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Eachof the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of Cubic Corporation herebycertifies that:

 

1.     The report of Cubic Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended December 31,2005 (the “Report”), which accompanies this certification, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of  1934.

 

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theRegistrant at the end of such quarter and the results of operations of theRegistrant for such quarter.

 

 
| /s/ W. J. Zable             |                    | /s/ W.W. Boyle |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|--------|
| W. J. Zable                 | W. W. Boyle             |
| Chief Executive Officer     | Chief Financial Officer |
|                        |                    |
| Date: February 7, 2006 |                    |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6672

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROME FREDERICK SATTERFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00131-TDS-1)

Submitted: October 26, 2018 Decided: November 15, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Frederick Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Frederick Satterfield appeals from the district court’s order granting his 

motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), but denying 

his request to have his federal sentence run concurrently to his state sentence. We have 

reviewed the court’s order de novo and find no error. United States v. Peters, 843 F.3d 

572, 577 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2267 (2017) (stating standard of 

review). We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

February 23, 2010

David J. Laing

Baker & McKenzie

815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: In the Matter of Service Corporation International, Docket No. C-4275

Dear Mr. Laing:

This is in reference to the Petition for Approval of Proposed Divestiture to Legacy

Funeral Holdings of Nevada, LLC (“Legacy”) filed by Service Corporation International (“SCI”)

and received on December 30, 2009 (“the Application”). Pursuant to the Decision and Order in

Docket No. C-4275, SCI requests prior Commission approval of its proposal to divest certain

assets to Legacy. 

After consideration of SCI’s Application and other available information, the

Commission has determined to approve the proposed divestiture as set forth in the Application. 

In according its approval, the Commission has relied upon the information submitted and the

representations made by SCI and Legacy in connection with SCI’s Application and has assumed

them to be accurate and complete.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

cc: Neil Kenton Alexander

Porter & Hedges LLP

1000 Main Street, 36 floor th

Houston, TX 77002
**Sanitized Manufacture of Substrate -**  **Infused Carbon**

**Nanostr ucture Complex on Substrate Number One** 

**50 –**  **100 Micron Length**
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7098 

AN ACT 

To expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, to authorize a study of additional land for potential inclusion 

in the park, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7098 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saguaro National Park 

3 Boundary Expansion and Study Act of 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK. 

5 Section 4 of the Saguaro National Park Establish6 ment Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–364; 108 Stat. 3467) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The bound10 aries of the park’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(2)(A) The boundaries of the park are further 

13 modified to include approximately 1,232 acres, as 

14 generally depicted on the map titled ‘Saguaro Na15 tional Parkl Proposed Boundary Adjustment’, 

16 numbered 151/80,045G, and dated October 2020. 

17 ‘‘(B) The map referred to in subparagraph (A) 

18 shall be on file and available for inspection in the 

19 appropriate offices of the National Park Service.’’; 

20 (2) by striking subsection (b)(2) and inserting 

21 the following new paragraphs: 

22 ‘‘(2) The Secretary may, with the consent of 

23 the State of Arizona and in accordance with Federal 

24 and State law, acquire land or interests therein 

25 owned by the State of Arizona within the boundary 

26 of the park. 
3 

•HR 7098 EH

1 ‘‘(3) If the Secretary is unable to acquire the 

2 State land under paragraph (2), the Secretary may 

3 enter into an agreement with the State that would 

4 allow the National Park Service to manage State 

5 land within the boundary of the park.’’; and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub7 section: 

8 ‘‘(d) BOUNDARY STUDY.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall con10 duct a study to identify any lands outside the bound11 aries of the park that may be appropriate for inclu12 sion in the park. 

13 ‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—The study shall be conducted 

14 in accordance with National Park Service criteria for 

15 boundary adjustment studies. 

16 ‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the 

17 date funds are made available for the study under 

18 this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the 

19 Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

20 Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

21 Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
4 

•HR 7098 EH

1 findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 

2 study.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7098 

AN ACT 

To expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, 

tial inclusion in the park, and for other purposes. to authorize a study of additional land for poten-
II 

Calendar No. 37 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 264 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

APRIL 14, 2021 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. JOSEPH HAYNE RAINEY MEMORIAL POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1101 Charlotte Street in George7 town, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 264 RS

1 the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey 

7 Memorial Post Office Building’’. 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 37 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 264 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostHayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Building’’. Georgetown, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Joseph al Service located at 1101 Charlotte Street in 

APRIL 14, 2021 

Reported without amendment 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John ELMORE, Jr. v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana.

No. 62465.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: John Elmore, Jr., applying for writs of certiorari, Review and Mandamus. Parish of Ouachita.

Writ denied.
ST A

TE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTM E NT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION Ai r Pollution Control Division Mr. Robert Rogers, Technical Manager Pollution Control Section Shelby County Health Department 814 Jefferson Ave ., 4th Floor Memphis, TN 38105 March 17, 2014 Dear Mr. Rogers, The Air Pollution Control Division would like to provide the following comments regarding Shelby County's revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that is currently out for public notice. With regards to the OSP (off-set plan), we submit the following comments: 1 . The em issions in Table 1 reflect tons/day . The discussion references tons/year. How were the tons/year derived? Was a model run conducted to generate the emissions in tons/year? 2. Does the point source inventory for 2021 reflect all changes to the point source sector (other than Cleo Inc.) that have occurred since the second half of the maintenance plan was originally submitted? Have other industries expanded or shut down since this maintenance plan was last submitted? If so, are those changes to the emissions inventory reflected here? If not, why not? 3. Page 11, 1 51 paragraph , the third sentence seems to indicate that there are reductions of NOx and VOCs from point sources, which is not borne out by the tables. In the second paragraph , the safety margins allocated to the MVEB do not appear to match the information in Table Ill. 4 . The emissions inventory does not show interim emissions estimates between 2006 and 2021. 5. The documentation lacked information on how the inputs for the MOVES model were developed . 6. What was the source of the VMT used? What are the VMT for each of the analysis years?7. What version of the MOVES database was used? 8. How was the source type population developed and adjusted over time? 9. How were the compliance factors in the IM inputs calculated? 10.Why is the endModeiYear 2002 in the 2006 IM input file? Did the 4 year exemption apply then? When did the change to the ordinance for the 4 year exemption take effect? 11 .The last paragraph on page 9 seems to indicate that the MVEBs did not change as provided in the 2010 ozone maintenance plan . Is this true? Table Ill and subsequent discussion do not agree with th.is statement. 12.Table Ill has a column indicating 'On-Road Allocation Percent'- these values appears to be a fraction , not a percent. The last column states that this is the "On-Road Safety Margin "; the safety margin identified in 40 CFR 93.101 indicates that any safety margin is not explicitly for onroad- it is the overall safety margin, some ofwhich (95% in this case) is being applied towards the MVEB . The column headings are somewhat confusi ng . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revisions to the maintenance plan . Sincerely,



# ~! **pHens PE**  Director

2
Ia. ” 3031
H2ALTH CERTIFICAT2 OF MAN J'ROCURIXG YARRIAOB LICENSE oplnlon oonstrulng Artfcla 464oc. 8. c. s.; 'and holdlngr 1.. Legislature

did not apacifymethod by whloh "reputablellaenaed physician*ahould determinefindin& 2.. Comty Clerk not authorized or required to look beyond oertlflbate ot physlolanas to freedom from~venereal disease of man seeking marriage llosnse.

OFFICE OF TEE ATl!ORM2Y GEXEfAL
January 24, 1939

-. Hon. A. J. Bryan, Jr. Cricllnal

DletriotAttorney HQlsboro, Texas Deati Slrr

- Should a doctor

make a blood test before certlfylng a man to be tree from venerealdisease for a marriage llcenae. This will aOknOwledgc receipt Of your letter Of January 4th. 1939, addressedto the AttorneyOenaral, whioh has been referred to the writer for consideration and reply. You rcqueat an opinion of this department in rcaponse to the followingquestion:

T?hare a party 1s seeking a~healthcertlficate in order to get his marriage llcenaa, la a doctor requlrad to make a blood test?* Your attention is direotad to Artlola 46490, Bevised Civil Statutes oi.Texae, whfoh providesas follows: Weiore the 'oocnty olerk shall issue any marriage lioenee, the man shell produce a certificate from a reputablelicensedphyslclsnto show that he 1s free from all venerealdlseaaes." There having been no court declslonsconstruing the above article, se ara confined to the coqstruction and the meanin Of its nprda.Hon. A. Ji Bpn; Jr.; Jannery 84, 1939. Pago 2
It..wll$

be noted the loglslature did not &eolfy or partloularlre

any oertalnmeans or method **by** whloh the "reputable

lloenoedphyeloian"should dotormlne his flnd- .lqa. There la no definite teat preacrlbed. The physlofan moklng the oertifloate must, under tha terms of the anaotment, be l

refutable"and *lIoensedW. When the oounty olerk is cognizantof thsas two things, **it** 1s our o9fnIop.hla lnqulry 1s ended. Howhere doe8 the Ieggislature authorize, or requlra, the clerk to 30 beyond the certlfioate ftaelf. Aooordlngly,

lf.the aertlfloate be lesoed'by

a "reputable licensed

physlclan"and if It certlfleethe applicant ror license to be Yrekfrom all venerealdiseases",If the other statutoryrequlrementa be met, it Is the duty of the clerk to fcrthwlth'lssuo tha lloonee. Letter oplnlon 30. O-35, written January 13, 1939, la withdrawn end thle one substituted therefor. ,Very'truly

yours ATTO~GEl?&.OFTEX&,

_

This oplnlonhas been oonsldered In conference, approved,

and ordered recorded. wEIG.?--
. ATTORNEYGL~RAL OF T2XAS
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                    SIMON WORLDWIDE, INC. (SWWI) SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                     JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION   OWNERSHIP
------------------                     -----------------------------   ---------
<S>                                    <C>                             <C>
Academyrox One Limited                 United Kingdom                  100% owned by SWWI
(f/k/a Cyrk Europe Limited)

Academyrox Two Limited                 United Kingdom                  100% owned by SWWI.
(f/k/a Cyrk/Tonkin Europe Limited)

Super Premium Limited                  British Virgin Islands          100% owned by SWWI

Global Sourcing, Inc.                  British Virgin Islands          100% owned by SWWI
(f/k/a Cyrk Far East, Inc.)

Global Sourcing (HK) Limited           Hong Kong                       100% owned by Global Sourcing, Inc.
(f/k/a Cyrk (H.K.) Limited)

Simon Worldwide (Canada), Inc.         Canada                          100% owned by SWWI
(f/k/a Cyrk Marketing Services, Inc.)

Simonww.com, Inc.                      Delaware                        100% owned by SWWI
(f/k/a Cyrk.com, Inc.)

Simon Marketing, Inc.                  Delaware                        100% owned by SWWI

Simon Marketing (Hong Kong)
     Limited                           Hong Kong                       100% owned by Simon Marketing, Inc.

Simon Ventures, Inc.                   California                      100% owned by Simon Marketing, Inc.

Simon Marketing Consulting
     (Canada) Limited                  Canada                          100% owned by Simon Ventures, Inc.

Simon Ventures International           United Kingdom                  100% owned by Simon Ventures, Inc.
     Limited

Simon Marketing International
     GmbH                              Germany                         100% owned by Simon Ventures International LTD

Simon Marketing International
     Limited                           United Kingdom                  100% owned by Simon Marketing International GmbH

Simon Marketing International
     Services Limited                  United Kingdom                  100% owned by Simon Ventures International LTD

Simon Marketing East Limited           Hong Kong                       100% owned by Simon Marketing (H.K.) LTD
</TABLE>
#### Anthony G. GIACOIO, Appellant, v. Grace GIACOIO, Appellee.

No. 73-956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1973.

Sinclair, Louis & Siegel and James F. Dougherty, II, Miami, for appellant.

Jones, Paine & Foster and George H. Bailey, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a post-judgment order denying appellant’s petition for modification of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by changing custody of the children from the mother to the father. The cause was bitterly contested in the trial court and the record is voluminous. Appellant contends that the trial court misapplied the law by using an incorrect standard of proof and abused its discretion in failing to grant the requested change in custody. In addition, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by restricting appellant’s rights of visitation granted under the final judgment.

We have examined the record in light of the arguments expressed by the parties and reach the conclusion that the evidence, although conflicting, substantially supports the decision of the trial judge. Therefore, the decision is affirmed. See Aronson v. Aronson, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 214.

Appellant’s additional point urging error upon the basis of the trial court’s change in appellant’s visitation rights without a specific prayer therefore does not present error under the principle stated in Scheer v. Scheer, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 456. Furthermore, the record reveals emotional conflict between the appellant and the appellee which was affecting the children. Under these circumstances, the trial court had the right to make such an order as would appear proper for the protection of the interests of the children. Cf. McCown v. McCown, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 250.

Affirmed.