alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### **EXHIBIT31.1**

#### ** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, StevenDurnil, certify that:

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Fischer ImagingCorporation;

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual 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.  Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b.Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c.  Disclosed in this annual reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

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:

 

a.  All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 1, 2006 | /s/ STEVEN DURNIL                                    |   |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Steven Durnil*Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

----
#### Karl JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-85.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CONFEDERATION OF CANADA LIFE INSURANCE, etc., Appellant, v. Nicolas George Lluy MIRABENT, By and Through his next friend, and guardian, Josefa Lluy, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Thomas H. White, Respondent-Appellant, v Commercial Union Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[722 NYS2d 193]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, the owner of certain *878commercial property, commenced this action to recover under a policy of property insurance issued by Commercial Union Insurance Company (defendant) to plaintiff’s former tenant. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The record establishes that plaintiff was named as a loss payee under the property coverage portion of the policy. We nonetheless conclude that neither party has established entitlement to summary judgment because the record contains only some provisions of the policy applicable to a loss payee under the property coverage portion of the policy and contains none of the common policy conditions and commercial property conditions applicable to the property coverage *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel PetroleumCorporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Parallel forthe year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in that Form 10-K/AReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Parallel.   Dated: August 22, 2005       /s/ Steven D. Foster     Steven D. Foster,  Chief Financial Officer     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### JAMES PLUNKETT *vs.*ELIZABETH Le HURAY.

A mere trustee cannot be summoned to answer as a garnishee of his cesluy que trust.

Foreign attachment; returned “Laid in the hands, of Jonathan Bee, executor of Nicholas Le Huray, dec’d., and summoned him as garnishee.”

On motion of *Mr. Rodney,*of counsel for the garnishee, rule to show cause why he should not be discharged from the attachment.

Nicholas Le Huray, by will, dated Jan. 8, 1834, devised that his farm, &c., should be sold for the benefit of his wife and children; and then bequeathed to his wife one-third of the interest of his real estate during her natural life, yearly to be paid to her by the hands of his executor, and after her death the principal to be divided among his children as she pleases. He appointed Jonathan Bee his executor. The farm, &c., was sold by the executor as directed by the will, and the proceeds invested.

Wales.

—An attachment will lie wherever a suit will. Here is a *437sum certain in the hands of an administrator subject to distribution, for which assumpsit will lie. (3 *Harr. Rep.*267-8, *Fitchett*vs. *Dolby.)*

*Wales,*for plaintiff.

*Rodney,*for defendant.

Rodney.

—This is not at all like the case cited. Money cannot be attached in the hands of an administrator. (2 *Harr. Rep.*349.) This fund is in the hands of J. B., as a trustee. It is a pure trust; as such, a court of law would not interfere with it, even if a court of chancery would. Property held in trust is not the subject of an execucution, or attachment. (1 *Com. Dig. Attachment; Doug.*380.) Jonathan Bee cannot be called on in this irregular way, in a court of law, to account for his trust; this can be done only in a court of equity.

Wales.

—The property is converted into money; the estate settled; the funds in the garnishee’s hands belonging to Elizabeth Le Huray; which she could recover annually from him by action.

The authorities cited are English authorities, which regard an administrator as a trustee merely; but our act of assembly, and decided cases, make him a mere debtor, after settlement of the estate, as to the residue; or as to a legacy; and he may be sued at law or attached.

Court.

—The rule must be made absolute. The fund is in the garnishee’s hands, strictly as a trustee; and he may be called to account for it in a court of equity. The case of a distributive balance in the hands of an administrator, after the estate is fully settled, stands on special grounds, under the provisions of the act of assembly.

Rule absolute.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 65 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 65

To authorize and direct the Committee on Appropriations to create a new 
                   Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1993

    Mr. Solomon (for himself and Mr. Stump) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize and direct the Committee on Appropriations to create a new 
                   Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs.

    Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations is hereby authorized 
and directed to establish a new Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs with 
exclusive subcommittee jurisdiction over the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and its programs, and the name of the existing subcommittee 
having such jurisdiction shall be redesignated accordingly.

                                 <all>
```
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- (),O D -65 1~ 2o cs-~/JM- 017-A-J) 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Paul LeBar 11/15/2012 Mod compliance time and 

cost 

A4A Joe White 11 /20/2012 Modification 

Other/ Additional In formation: 

10
#### The Central Ohio Gas Co. *v.*The Public Utilities Commission.

*Public Utilities Commission*— Duty *to grant rehearing and receive evidence*— Discontinuance, *of service.*

(No. 18323

Decided April 22, 1924.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. G. H. Henkel,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. C. Crabbe,*attorney general; *Mr. John W. Bricker; Mr. H. C. Ashcraft; Mr. Robert Ton Velle; Mr. Frank J. Wright; Mr. Booster Evans*and *Mr. J. Edgar Butler,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by the court that the order of said Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, denying a rehearing, be, and the same is hereby, reversed, for the reason that the order having been made without notice to the plaintiff in error or an opportunity afforded to the plaintiff in error to be heard, and the plaintiff in error having in its application for a rehearing made the questions of the unreasonableness or unlawfulness of the order, the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission to make the order, the power of the Public Utilities Commission to supervise and control the discontinuance of service, the applicability of Sections 504-2 and 504-3 of the General Code to the right of the plaintiff in error to discontinue service, and the constitutionality of the order of the commission, and having been denied the opportunity to introduce evidence, was entitled to be heard upon such questions, and introduce evidence *664thereon, and the denial of such hearing was unreasonable and unlawful.

The order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio denying a rehearing is therefore reversed, and the Public Utilities Commission is ordered to grant a rehearing and this cause is remanded to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for further proceedings according to law.

*Order reversed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.

Wanamaker and Allen, JJ., not participating.
#### Montgomery vs. Brittin.

The plea of the statute of limitations is not appropriate to an action of sciro facias to revive a judgment.

*Appeal from, Lafayette Circuit Court.*

Hon. Len B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Randolph, for the appellant.

Gallagher, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the court.

The questions presented in this case were decided in *Brearl/y vs. Peay, Bee.,*at the present term, which followed previous adjudications of the court.

The judgment sought to be revived by the *scire facias*was rendered 29th April, 1850. Upon the trial of the issue to the plea of payment, no actual payment was proven, and sufficient time for the common law presumption of payment to attach, had not elapsed when the scire facias was sued out. The plea of the statute oi limitation was inappropriate.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from Dean Witter
Diversified Futures Fund Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                     127,547,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  386,989<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,718,751<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               129,718,751<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,531,954<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,555,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,976,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,976,181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,976,181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $386,989.
<F2>In  addition to cash and  receivables,  total assets  include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $1,784,289.
<F3>Liabilities  include redemptions  payable of $1,455,425,  accrued management
fee of $311,965, and administrative expenses payable of $104,784.
<F4>Total revenue includes  realized trading revenue of $33,303,232,  net change
in unrealized of $(18,899,999) and interest income of $5,128,721.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.3

                    OFFICER EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network  Equipment  Technologies,  Inc.  ("the  Company")  and  the  undersigned
("Officer"),   in  partial   consideration  for  their  continuing  officer  and
employment  relationship and to encourage continued employment in the event of a
potential Change of Control, agree as follows:

1. In the  event of  Termination  of  Employment  of  Officer  resulting  from a
Corporate  Transaction,  Change of Control or Hostile  Take-Over (as those terms
are  defined in the 1993 Stock  Option  Plan,  collectively  referred to in this
Agreement as "Change of Control") or from  involuntary  termination  for reasons
other than cause, the Company will provide severance benefits as follows:

     a.   one year of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),

     b.   one  year of  Officer's  variable  compensation  (computed  using  the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),

     c.   Officer level medical,  dental,  life and disability  insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and

     d.   vesting of  outstanding  stock  options and  restricted  stock  awards
          during the period of salary continuance.

2.  "Termination  of  Employment"  of Officer  occurs when one of the  following
occurs: he or she is terminated without cause, job location is changed more than
50 miles, his or her compensation is materially reduced or responsibilities  are
substantially  altered or reduced  (without  express consent of the employee) by
the Company,  or by any successor to the Company in  conjunction  with or within
one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3. In the event of a Termination Of Employment in  conjunction  with a Change of
Control,  then vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock held by
Officer shall  accelerate at the time of such  Termination.  All vested  options
shall be exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4. In order to receive the  foregoing,  Officer  agrees to execute the Company's
release and  non-competition  agreement at the time of any such  Termination  of
Employment.

Agreed this 27 day of October, 1995.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                                      Gerald M. Schumacher
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                                ------------------------------
                                                      (Print Name of Officer)

By: /s/ Joseph J. Francesconi                         /s/ G.M. Schumacher
    -------------------------                     ------------------------------
                                                          (Signature)
Title: President & CEO

October 26, 1995                                             N.E.T. Confidential
#### John C. MOORE v. John M. PARKS, Jr., et al.

No. 62757.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: John C. Moore applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant a writ.
EXHIBIT 99(b)


             Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
            (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Tom B. Dake, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
of Miltope Group, Inc.(the "Registrant"), certifies that to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2002 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) [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 Registrant.


____________________________


Name: /s/ Tom B. Dake
      ---------------

Date: March 18, 2003
Order filed October 13, 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00252

- CV

____________ IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MAYRA LIZABETH

RAMIREZ CARBAJAL AND VINCE CASIMIR

On Appeal from the 507th District Court

Ha rris Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 80554



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due October 5, 2020

. No brief or motion for extension
of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 4, 2020
, the court wi ll dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAMPanel Consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ Marshall O. LarsenName: Marshall O. LarsenTitle: Chairman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer/s/ Scott E. KuechleName: Scott E. KuechleTitle: Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
 79
#### George McKINNEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1972.

*240Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Legal Intern, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ„ and NATHAN, RAYMOND G., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged by information with murder in the second degree. When tried thereon he was convicted of murder in the third degree. On this appeal therefrom by the defendant it is contended the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we hold that contention is without merit.

It was shown by the state, without contradiction, that the defendant shot and killed the victim. However, the appellant argues that the evidence established the homicide was justifiable, as having been committed in self-defense. See § 782.02 (2) (b) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

On the evidence submitted the trier of the facts was clearly entitled to find against the defendant on the issues relating to self-defense. The victim, with a woman companion, entered defendant’s premises seeking to rent a room. An argument ensued over the amount to be paid therefor. In the course of the argument the victim pulled a gun on the defendant, and threatened to shoot him. While the discussion was in progress the woman departed. When the argument ended the victim also departed, after announcing a further threat that he would return and rob and kill the defendant. After the victim went out the defendant remained inside, and locked the door. The defendant then went up to the second floor, obtained a shotgun, and went onto an upstairs porch from where he shot twice at the victim as the latter was leaving the yard and preparing to depart by automobile. The defendant stated that before he fired, the victim turned on him with a gun. A witness testified that the victim did not turn until after the defendant had fired one shot, and that the victim was felled by a second shot fired by the defendant from the upstairs porch. On those facts, elements necessary to make out justifiable homicide by self-defense were lacking. See Ward v. State, 75 Fla. 756, 79 So. 699, 706-707; Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273, 274-275; State v. Coles, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 200, 203.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ricardo Bernardes, in my capacity as the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

the annual report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on March 25, 2008 complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
the information contained in such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.

Dated: March 25, 2008



By:

/s/ RICARDO BERNARDESRicardo BernardesExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer