alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                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 on Form 10-K of ON Technology
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Robert L. Doretti, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

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

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                 /s/ Robert L. Doretti*
                                 -----------------------------------------------
Dated:  March 28, 2003           Robert L. Doretti
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

*    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to ON Technology Corporation and will be retained by ON
     Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
     Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       75
#### The State v. Kinney.

1. Criminal Law: appeal: effect of reversal. If the State appeal in a criminal case, the Supreme Court cannot reverse the judgment of the court below so that another trial may be had, but it may point out any errors in the proceedings or the measure of punishment. The effect of the decision is nothing more than an authoritative exposition of the law to be followed afterwards by the inferior courts.

*Appeal from Montgomery District Court.*

Friday, October 20.

The defendant was convicted on an information before a justice of the peace, charging the offense of assault and battery. Upon an appeal taken by defendant, the District Court dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace trying it. The State appealed from this decision of the District Oourt, which was reversed in this court. See 41 Iowa, 424. A *procedendo*in the usual form was issued commanding the District Court to proceed as if no judgment had been rendered. At the next term of the District Court, after the cause had been reversed in this court, the district *445attorney moved tBs^t the judgment dismissing the case be set aside and that it be entered for trial. The grounds of this motion were the judgment of this court reversing the decision of the District Court and the *procedendo*issued thereon. The motion was overruled, and thereupon the State appealed from the order to that effect.

*Smith*McPherson, District Attorney, and *M. E. Outts,*Attorney General, for the State.

No appearance for defendant.

Beck, J.

i. criminal eflect^ofPre-: versal. The statute provides that in criminal cases the State may appeal to this court. Code, § 4521. The effect of a decision of this court in such cases is prescribed ^11 section 4539, in the following language: “If the appeal be taken by the State, the Supreme Court cannot reverse the judgment, or modify it so as to increase the punishment, but may affirm it, and shall point out any error in the proceedings, or in the measure of punishment, and its decision shall' be obligatory on the District Court, as the correct exposition of the law.” Under this provision the Supreme Court cannot interfere with the judgment of the District Court on an appeal of this character. The effect of the decision in this court is nothing more than an authoritative exposition of the law to be followed by the inferior courts. This provision applies to all appeals by the State, whether they be from judgments rendered upon trials on the merits, or judgments upon demurrers and motions. The decision in the District Court ends the proceedings so far as the case stands against the defendant, and it is only brought to this court as the foundation of an exposition of the law to be announced here.

The fact that a *procedendo*issued in the usual form, requiring the District Court to proceed with the case as if no judgment had been entered, does not lead to a different conclusion. No such writ'should have been issued. It cannot abrogate the plain provision of the statute and give the court below jurisdiction not conferred by law.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18319]



[[Page 42889]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2224-000]


Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Pegasus Wind, 
LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Pegasus Wind, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file 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 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 10, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#34727166777b5a585d5a51674144445b464074525146571a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5b3b0a7b6ba9b999c9b90a68085859a8781b593908796db929a83">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 20, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18319 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
**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 Quarterly Report of Modern Mobility Aids, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sergei Khorolski, 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. |

 

 

| Dated: December 17, 2010   | By:    | /s/ Sergei Khorolski                                            |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   | Sergei KhorolskiChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Principal 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 Gate Acquisition Corp. 1 (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chi Wu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Chi WuChi Wu



Principal Financial Officer

February 15, 2011
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-87157, 333-05939, 333-37921 and 333-94859) and
Form S-8 (No. 333-75339, 33-75934, 333-4280, 333-08047 and 333-43802) of SatCon
Technology Corporation and its subsidiaries of our report dated December 17,
1998, except to the restatement described in Note A, as to which the date is
September 11, 2000, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

                                          /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
September 15, 2000
Board of Directors Meeting

(continuation of September 9, 2021, Board meeting)

Friday, September 17, 2021

This event is closed to the public

An information summary for the below listed project can be found on dfc.gov

Meeting Agenda

 

I. CHAIRMAN OPENS MEETING

II. PROJECT APPROVALS

a. Avaada Sunrays Energy Private Limited 

Structured Finance

b. Daystar Power Group 

Equity

III. DFC FY 2023 BUDGET

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS

a. Updates to Corporate Bylaws 

b. Minutes – June 9, 2021, DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

V. DFC’S OVERSEAS PRESENCE 

VI. CHAIRMAN ADJOURNS MEETING 

Location: Meeting will be held via videoconference
----

|   | (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: May 16, 2011      | By:    | /s/ Jack E. Byrd, Jr.                 |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Jack E. Byrd, Jr.                     |
|                    |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |   |                                  |
| Date: May 16, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Becky T. Harrell                  |
|                    |   | Becky T. Harrell                      |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

----
#### In the Matter of Robin Marino et al., Appellants, v Island Express Advertising Inc., et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law article 11 for judicial dissolution of a corporation and to rescind the purchase of stock and recover the money paid, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusik, J.), dated November 8, 1989, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action on the issue of rescission of the purchase agreement is granted.

In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent Island Express Advertising Inc. was authorized by its Certificate of Incorporation to issue a maximum of 200 shares of stock. The petitioners have submitted sufficient proof in evidentiary form indicating that they alone were issued in excess of 550 shares of stock in the corporation. Thus, the petitioners have established their cause of action for rescission of the *526purchase agreement pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code § 8-104 sufficient to warrant the court, as a matter of law, to direct judgment in their favor *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). The burden then fell upon the respondents to submit evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of fact *(see, Matusewicz v Motion Mktg.,*161 AD2d 620). The opposition papers allege the existence of factual issues which are not relevant to the ultimate disposition of the issues at bar and thus are not sufficient to defeat the petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).*

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 21**

 

 

**MPS GROUP, INC.**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Accounting Principals, Inc. 

Amicus Staffing, Inc. 

Beeline Operations Corp. 

Beeline.com, Inc. 

Data Management Consultants, Inc. 

Diversified Search, Inc. 

Entegee, Inc. 

First Shore, Inc. 

Idea Integration Corp. 

Idea.com, Inc. 

LIT, Inc. 

MPS Asset Management Corp. 

MPS Executive Services Co. 

MPS Group, LLC 

MPS IP Services Corp. 

MPS Group International PLC 

MPS Group Outplacement Co. 

MPS Realty Services, Inc. 

Modis Consulting Partners, Inc. 

Modis of Georgia, Inc. 

Modis, Inc. 

Modis/Computer Action Inc. 

Modis International Company 

Modis Professional Services, Inc. 

Soliant Health, Inc. 

Soliant, Inc. 

Soliance, LLC 

Special Counsel, Inc. 

Sunbelt Staffing Solutions, Inc. 

The McKinley Group of Florida LLC
---

Exhibit
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:




(1)
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-4 (File No.
333-34641);




(2)
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-82282);




(3)
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-3 (File No.
333-113782);




(4)
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-3 (File No.
333-116107);




(5)
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-124676);
and




(6)
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-127481).




of our
reports dated March 10, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements,
financial statement schedule and effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Miller Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries, which appear in
this Form 10-K.




/s/
Joseph Decosimo and Company, PLLC




Chattanooga,
Tennessee


March 10,
2010
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) and 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, 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 Trust.
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORDOMINION RESOURCES BLACK WARRIOR
TRUSTMarch 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty Management

Bank of America, N.A.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marianne C. Chimento, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 2, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The record reveals that claimant left her job as a chiropractic assistant because there was too much responsibility which caused her stress. First, we note that claimant’s weekend work schedule was entirely up to her and, therefore, she did not have to work seven days to complete her job duties. In addition, while claimant alleged that there were work-related stress problems, she received no medical advice to leave the job. Consequently, the decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Chaw kin [Catherwood],*18 AD2d 750).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
DFC

                                                                            Main navigation

      
      Who We Are
                            About Us
                      Overview
                      Careers
                            Hiring Paths
                      Career Paths
                      Events
                      DEIA
                      Contact
                      Our People
                            Executive Staff
                      Board of Directors
                      Development Advisory Council
                      What We Do
                            Our Work
                            Regions
                      Sectors
                      Initiatives
                      Active Projects
                      Investment Stories
                      What We Offer
                            Our Products
                            Debt Financing
                      Equity Investments
                      Investment Funds
                      Feasibility Studies
                      Political Risk Insurance
                      Technical Assistance
                      Work With Us
                            Where We Work
                      Investment Policies
                      Eligibility Checklist
                      Apply
                      Our Impact
                            Approach to Impact
                      Transaction Data
                      Reports
                      Transparency
                            Overview
                      Office of Accountability
                      Office of Inspector General
                      Media
                            Newsroom
                      In the News
                      Speeches & Testimony

                                Search...
                Keywords
Apply  Speeches & Testimony
 March 17, 2021VP Sajery on DFC’s Work to Expand Rooftop Solar in India
  
        Pagination
    First page
            « First
      
                    Previous page
            ‹‹
      
            
                    Page1
              Page2
              Page3
              Current page4
 Follow UsStay connected with DFC news and updates!
Sign Up
      
        U.S. International Development Finance Corporation1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20527Info@dfc.gov | +1 (202) 336-8400
                            
                                                Footer - Quick Links 1
  

        
      White House
                      usa.gov
                      Office of Inspector General
                      Archived Reports
                      Privacy
                      Accessibility
                      Vulnerability Disclosure Form
                      Information Quality Guidelines
                      FOIA
                      EEO Office ×
 Keywords
Apply
EXHIBIT 31.1

CONTANGO ORE, INC.

Certification Required by Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934

I, Kenneth R. Peak, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Contango ORE, Inc. (the
Company), certify that:

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

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;

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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness
of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 14, 2011                             
|                                                    
|/s/ KENNETH R. PEAK                                 
|Kenneth R. Peak Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer