alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Derrick Romine, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cardo Medical, Inc.; and

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



|Date: April 29, 2011 | /s/ Derrick Romine
                      Derrick RomineChief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  Honorable A. Y. Ueadovs, Direotor 9eX8S A~ronautl.o8 Comal88iOn Au8tin, Texas **0plalon lo.**  **O-7492** Deer Sir:

“Can the oities 

### vhlehhaa been t 

### the city 

### of

Jds :jt
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.16 MB)

Tags:DSCC, DLA Land & Maritime, columbus, hall of fame, EVENT, People and Culture, veterans

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EX-10.1.7.6



 Exhibit 10.1.7.6 

AMENDMENT TO 
 THE
CONSOLIDATED EDISON 
 THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN 

Taking Into Account the Following: 

• Changes Resulting from the Total Rewards Study 

For Employees of the Competitive Energy Businesses. 

Effective January 1, 2013 

  
 1 








 1. The Introduction is amended by replacing the third paragraph with the following: 

Effective January 1, 2013, as a result of the Board of Trustees of GECONY, the Board of Directors of O&R, and Board of
Directors of the Competitive Energy Businesses having each adopted recommendations from the Total Rewards Study, the Thrift Savings Plan is amended to take into account the Total Reward Study changes to the employer matching contribution formula for
a CECONY Management Participant, a CE! Participant, and an O&R Management Participant who is covered under the cash balance formula in the Consolidated Edison Retirement Plan (“Retirement Plan”), and for a CE! Participant not covered
under the Retirement Plan. 
 2. Article III, Section 3.05, Participating Contributions Eligible for Employer Matching
Contributions, subsection (b) Employer Matching Contributions for a CECONY Management Participant and a CEI Participant, is amended, effective January 1, 2013, by adding after the last sentence in subsection (b) the following:

 Beginning with the first payroll period on or after January 1, 2013, or as soon as administratively practicable
thereafter, the Employer will contribute, on behalf of each CEI Participant who is covered under the cash balance formula of the Retirement Plan and elects to make Pre-Tax Contributions, Roth Contributions, or After-Tax Contributions, and on behalf
of each CEI Participant who is not covered under or accruing a benefit under the Retirement Plan and elects to make Pre-Tax Contributions, Roth Contributions, or After-Tax Contributions, an amount equal to 100% of the first 4% and 50% of the next 4%
of the sum of the Pre-Tax Contributions, Roth Contributions, and After-Tax Contributions made on behalf of or by such CEI Participant during each month, not to exceed 6% of Compensation for such month, to be matched first on Pre-Tax Contributions,
then on Roth 

  
 2 








 Contributions, and then on After-Tax Contributions. Employer Matching Contributions for a month
will not exceed 6% of the Participant’s Compensation for such month. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to
be executed this 19 day of December, 2013 
  

	
	/s/ Mary Adamo
	 Mary Adamo
 The Plan Administrator of
the Thrift Savings Plan and

	Vice President of Human Resources
	Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.


  
 3
# Beaufort Exploration Licence 446 (Ajurak)



# Submission Regarding the Relief Well Policy for Offshore Drilling in Arctic Waters

Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Calgary



# IPRCC.PR.2010.06

March 2010March 2010 Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited 4-7 CC004 

### Section 4.3 SSRW CAPABILITY

SUBMISSION REGARDING THE RELIEF WELL POLICY FOR OFFSHORE DRILLING IN ARCTIC WATERS

CAPABILITY IN SHALLOW WATER

LIMITATIONS THROUGHOUT THE OFFSHORE



### For most circumstances in deepwater, completing a relief well operation in a single season is impossible. In many instances, completing a relief well operation in shallow water, or even on land, could also be unlikely or impossible. Figure 4-4 shows the typical types of drilling rigs that could be used through a range of geographical a nd geological conditions.

• 0 wells • 48 wells* • 37 wells* Number of Wells Drilled • none • none • 120 days Winter Season • 50 days • 70 days • 85 days Open Water Season • dynamically positioned drilling • moored drilling • bottom-founded and

moored drilling Type of Offshore Drilling Rig • multi-year ice present • multi-year ice intrusions • land-fast, first-year ice

• limited multi-year ice Ice • 5,000 m and deeper • 4,500–5,000 m • 3,500 m True Vertical Depth (TVD) • 100 m–1,200 m • 25 m–100 m • 0 m–25 m Water Depth Slope Deep Shelf Shallow Shelf Factors

• 0 wells • 48 wells* • 37 wells* Number of Wells Drilled • none • none • 120 days Winter Season • 50 days • 70 days • 85 days Open Water Season • dynamically positioned drilling • moored drilling • bottom-founded and

moored drilling Type of Offshore Drilling Rig • multi-year ice present • multi-year ice intrusions • land-fast, first-year ice

• limited multi-year ice Ice • 5,000 m and deeper • 4,500–5,000 m • 3,500 m True Vertical Depth (TVD) • 100 m–1,200 m • 25 m–100 m • 0 m–25 m Water Depth Slope Deep Shelf Shallow Shelf Factors

*Source: Geologic Survey of Canada 0 m 25 m 100 m 650 m 1,200 m

Shore Shallow Shelf Deep Shelf Slope

• expected Ajurak drilling location is in water 650 m deep 0 m 25 m 100 m 650 m 1,200 m

Shore Shallow Shelf Deep Shelf Slope

• expected Ajurak drilling location is in water 650 m deep



### Figure 4-4: Environmental Factors Influencing Well Design and Planning

The deep shelf has a lower probability of unwanted incursions of multi-year ice than the deepwater on the slope. However, the geologic targets can be just as deep, and the resupply and operations window constraints also apply.

On the shallow shelf and on land, the operations are typically on bottom-founded rigs and the season is the winter season rather than the summer open-water season. Although the geologic targets are generally more shallow than those
Exhibit 32.1

Solido Ventures Inc. 

A Nevada corporation

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Solido Ventures Inc.  ("Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Michael Burns, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed from within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|  

Solido Ventures Inc. 

Dated: May 30, 2012

By:

  */s/Michael Burns*

 

 

Michael Burns

 

 

President & Chief Executive Officer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 21

SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                                |  |              |   |  |                                          
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | - |  | -----------------------------------------
|                                                |  | PercentOwned |   |  | Jurisdictionof Incorporation/Organization
|1. Security Bank of Bibb County(1)              |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|2. Security Bank of Houston County              |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|3. Security Bank of Jones County                |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|4. Security Bank of North Metro                 |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|5. Security Bank of North Fulton                |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|6. Security Bank of Gwinnett County             |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                  
|7. Security Bank Corporation Statutory Trust I  |  | 100          | % |  | Connecticut                              
|8. Security Bank Corporation Statutory Trust II |  | 100          | % |  | Delaware                                 
|9. Rivoli BanCorp Capital Trust I               |  | 100          | % |  | Delaware                                 

---

|(1) | Fairfield Financial Services, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Security Bank of Bibb County.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fourth C ourt of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 30, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00094

- CV

Roger Scott LADWIG and Wayne Ramsay,

Appellants

v.

Theresa Marie GRAF,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 15269

Honorabl e Rosie Alvarado , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Pat ricia O. Alvare z, Justice

Luz Elena Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Just ice,

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On December 17 , 2020, appellants filed a motion for en banc reconsideration. After

consideration, the motion is DENIED

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my ha nd and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of December, 2020

.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

|Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to
|Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002                           

I, John G. Robertson, President (principal executive officer)
of Reg Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Reg Technologies Inc. for
the year ended April 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reg
Technologies Inc.

|Richmond, BC, Canada                   
|---------------------------------------
|by: /s/ John G. Robertson              
|November 7, 2008                       
|John G. Robertson                      
|President (Principal Executive Officer)

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



---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1099

EARLY A. CAUDLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 08-12727)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Early A. Caudle, Petitioner Pro Se. Bruce R. Ellisen, Curtis Clarence Pett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Early A. Caudle appeals the tax court’s order

dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Caudle v.

Comm’r of Internal Revenue , No. 08-12727 (U.S. Tax Ct. Nov. 14,

2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adam Abdul-Hakeem, Also Known as Larry Davis, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered December 15, 1988, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to two terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 15 years and three terms of from 1% to 5 years, to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was charged with nine counts of attempted murder in the first degree, several counts of aggravated assault upon a police officer, two counts of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and six counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant was acquitted after trial of all but two counts of possession of a weapon in the second degree and four of the third degree possession counts, one of which was later dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court should have charged the jury on "necessity” as to the weapons possession counts.

The crime of illegal possession of a weapon is not to be confused with the use which is ultimately made of that weapon. While the intent entertained by the defendant during the time of its illegal possession may render the crime more serious, "[o]nce the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime” *(People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 130). Therefore, criminal prosecution may not be avoided by the claim that the weapon was possessed merely for protection *(supra).*Moreover, "because possession of a weapon does not involve the use of physical force *(see, People v Almodovar, supra),*there are no *178circumstances when justification (Penal Law § 35.15) can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon” *(People v Pons,*68 NY2d 264, 267).

Defendant’s contention that his possession of the weapons was justified by the doctrine of necessity as codified in Penal Law § 35.05 is without merit. As stated in *People v Almodovar (supra,*at 130), the extent to which possession of an unlicensed or proscribed weapon is deemed innocent in this State is limited to circumstances in which the possession is "temporary and lawful”. In this matter, as in *Almodovar (supra,*at 130-131), "any benefit [defendant] was entitled to because of the claim of self-defense pertained to the use of a weapon and he received that when the court charged justification in connection with the counts of attempted murder and assault”. Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60005-60006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[AC 187-1F]

Schedule of Charges Outside the United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

[[Page 60006]]

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the 
availability of Advisory Circular (AC) 187-1F which transmits an 
updated schedule of charges for services of FAA Flight Standards 
Aviation Safety Inspectors outside the United States. The advisory 
circular has been updated in accordance with the procedures listed in 
14 CFR Part 187, Appendix A.

DATES: This AC is effective on October 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: How to obtain copies: A copy of this publication may be 
downloaded from: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/.pdf

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tish Thompkins-Imafidon, Flight 
Standards Service, AFS-50, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 385-
8097.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2012.
Raymond Towles,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-23954 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Annual Report of Miller Industries, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Vincent
Mish, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 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:  March 26, 2004

| | /s/ J. Vincent Mish                                                      | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
| |                                                                          | 
| | J. Vincent Mish
  Executive Vice President and
  Chief Financial Officer | 

---

---
#### Robert B. Weintraub, Appellant, v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on March 16, 1990, which, upon converting defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), dismissed, in its entirety, the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an attorney and former associate at the law firm of defendant Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon commenced the underlying action against the law firm, its client Occidental Petroleum Corporation ("Occidental”), and nine individual partners of the law firm for, *inter alia,*wrongful discharge, breach of an employment contract and defamation. Plaintiff was discharged after he and other Phillips, Nizer attorneys were disqualified from appearing before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas because of conduct in violation of the Texas disciplinary code.

Plaintiff’s first, third, fourth, and sixth through eleventh causes of action, for breach of fiduciary duty, were properly dismissed, since it is well settled in New York that no fiduciary obligation is owed by an employer to an at-will employee *(Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*58 NY2d 293). A violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as alleged by the plaintiff, does not, in itself, give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney or law firm *(Drago v Buonagurio,*46 NY2d 778).

Similarly, plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for breach of contract was properly dismissed, since plaintiff’s employment at the law firm was a hiring at-will which may be terminated at any time by either party for any or no reason *(Sabetay v Sterling Drug,*69 NY2d 329; *Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., supra).*Further, the record reveals that the law firm’s written policy did not, in any way, limit the employer’s otherwise absolute right to terminate plaintiff’s at-will employment *(Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc.,*57 NY2d 458).

Plaintiff’s fifteenth cause of action for defamation is also legally insufficient. No cause of action for defamation exists for the mere discharge of an at-will employee *(Nichols v Item Publishers,*309 NY 596). Plaintiff has failed to allege or establish publication to a third party *(Indig v Finkelstein,*23 *255NY2d 728), nor, as plaintiff concedes, does New York law recognize a claim for defamation where the plaintiff himself voluntarily republishes the alleged defamatory words *(Church of Scientology v Green,*354 F Supp 800, 804).

Finally, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that under CPLR 3212 (f) there are salient facts within the knowledge and control of the movants which require pre-trial discovery *(Fuchs v MiCAD Sys.,*138 AD2d 312). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.