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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michael S. Gross, Chief Executive Officer of
Solar Senior Capital Ltd., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solar Senior Capital Ltd.;

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;

3. 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our 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; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Dated this 1stday of May, 2012



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/S/    MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Michael S. Gross
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1998 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,056,341
<SECURITIES>                                    49,438
<RECEIVABLES>                                  413,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,988
<INVENTORY>                                     39,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,629,259
<PP&E>                                       1,892,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                 976,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,218,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          973,492
<BONDS>                                        941,423
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    724,820
<COMMON>                                       112,089
<OTHER-SE>                                     505,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,218,306
<SALES>                                      3,009,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,009,085
<CGS>                                        1,518,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,518,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               200,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,879
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                200,852
<INCOME-TAX>                                   107,438
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             93,414
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,323,924
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,417,338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    16.06
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Blake, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first and second degrees, burglary in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, all stemming from charges that, during the course of the robbery and burglary, he displayed what appeared to be a pistol *(see,*Penal Law § 140.30 [4]; § 160.15 [4]). There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the jury’s implicit finding that the handgun was operable was contrary to the weight of evidence. Expert testimony revealed that each of the six chambers of the revolver contained a bullet; that, upon examination, one of the bullets contained black powder and a ball; that the gun could be fired simply by inserting a percussion cap on nipples at the back of the cylinders and cocking the hammer before pulling the trigger; and that the expert successfully test-fired the remaining five bullets. The jury obviously credited this testimony, and its verdict was not contrary to the weight of evidence *(see, People v Santostefano,*104 AD2d 1011).

The remaining issue raised by defendant was not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to exercise our discretionary review powers *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Brooks,*167 AD2d 854, *lv denied*77 NY2d 836). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 687 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 687

 To prohibit the closing of air traffic control towers, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 9, 2013

 Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, Ms. 
Ayotte, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
 Manchin, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Vitter, 
  Mr. Warner, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Nelson) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the closing of air traffic control towers, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CLOSURE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not, during 
fiscal year 2013 or 2014, suspend or terminate the operation of any air 
traffic control tower in operation on March 1, 2013, without regard to 
whether the tower is operated by the Federal Aviation Administration or 
a contractor.
    (b) Resumption of Operation of Closed Towers.--If the Administrator 
suspended or terminated the operation of an air traffic control tower 
described in subsection (a) after March 1, 2013, and before the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall provide for the 
resumption of the operation of that tower as soon as practicable after 
such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
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 on Form 10-Q of Fidus Investment Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward H. Ross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Cary L. Schaefer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 8, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ EDWARD H. ROSS                          
|                  |  |  |  | Edward H. Ross                              
|                  |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer        
|                  |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | /s/ CARY L. SCHAEFER                        
|                  |  |  |  | Cary L. Schaefer                            
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Kevin  Monson,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of  Ecological  Services,  Inc.  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2000 fully complies within the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly represents in all material  respects the financial  condition
and results of operations of Ecological Services, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Kevin Monson
                                           ----------------------------
                                        Name: Kevin Monson
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer


I,  Kevin  Monson,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of  Ecological  Services,  Inc.  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2000 fully complies within the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly represents in all material  respects the financial  condition
and results of operations of Ecological Services, Inc.



                                          By: /s/ Kevin Monson
                                             --------------------------
                                          Name: Kevin Monson
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19638]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 18-07]


Marine Transport Logistics, Inc. v. CMA-CGM (America), LLC; 
Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by Marine Transport Logistics, Inc., 
hereinafter ``Complainant'', against CMA-CGM (America), LLC, 
hereinafter ``Respondent''. Complainant states that it is a Non-Vessel 
Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) located in Bayonne, New Jersey and is 
licensed with the Commission. Complainant asserts that Respondent is a 
Vessel Operating Common Carrier (VOCC) located in East Rutherford, New 
Jersey.
    Complainant states that Respondent was contracted to ship nine 
containers of cars to Yemen in December 2017 and those containers were 
not delivered.
    Specifically, Complainant alleges that the Respondent violated:
    a. ``. . . Section 41102(c) of the Shipping Act in that such 
respondent failed to establish, observe, and enforce just reasonable 
regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, 
handling, or delivering of property . . .'';
    b. ``. . . Section 41104(9) of the Shipping Act in that, such 
Respondent imposed undue and unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage . . 
.''; and
    c. ``. . . Section 41104 (10) of the Shipping Act in that, such 
Respondent unreasonably refused to deal or negotiate . . .''
    Complainant seeks reparations and other relief. The full text of 
the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room 
at www.fmc.gov/18-07/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office 
of Administrative Law Judges.
    The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding 
shall be issued by September 6, 2019, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by March 20, 2020.

Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19638 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
NUMBER 13-13-00034-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ERIC HERRERA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 357th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Eric Herrera, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for 

aggravated assault. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a 
2

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on May 16, 2012. Appellant filed 

his notice of appeal on January 8, 2013. On May 22, 2013, the Clerk of this Court 

notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected and that the 

appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of 

receipt of the Court’s directive. Appellant has not filed a response to the Court’s 

directive. 

Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed 

within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after 

the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a 

timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety 

days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2). 

The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the 

deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying 

with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.

Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than seven months after sentence was 

imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See 

Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a 

post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; 

however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX.
3

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 

S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

25th day of July, 2013.
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

NO. 07-04-0077-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 7, 2005

______________________________

DALE SUE JONES AND STANLEY RAY JONES, APPELLANTS

V.

TED SCOTT, M.D., ET AL., APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-513,918; HONORABLE J. BLAIR CHERRY, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY

Appellants Dale Sue Jones and Stanley Ray Jones perfected this appeal to

challenge the trial court’s order dismissing their health care liability claim against appellees.

Following a stay in bankruptcy, on January 27, 2005, the appeal was reinstated pursuant
2

to appellee Ted Scott’s motion. Scott included a copy of an order of dismissal with

prejudice in case number 04-18791-NLJ from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Western District of Oklahoma. Currently pending before this Court is a second notice of

bankruptcy that includes a copy of the page of the bankruptcy petition filed February 9,

2005, in case number 05-11191NLJ . See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1(e). Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 362, an automatic stay is imposed prohibiting the commencement or continuation of any

judicial actions or proceedings against a debtor. 

Pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal is

suspended. For administrative purposes, the appeal is removed from the docket and

abated. Any documents filed subsequent to the bankruptcy petition will remain pending

until the appeal is reinstated. The appeal will be reinstated upon proper showing from the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma that the stay has

been lifted and a request for specific action by this Court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3(a).

Accordingly, the appeal is abated.

Per Curiam
Exhibit 32.2





NETWORKING PARTNERS, 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 Quarterly Report of Networking Partners, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Enzo Taddei, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.








Date:  August 15, 2011
/s/ Enzo TaddeiEnzo TaddeiChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)