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


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Chapter
63, Title 18 USC Section 1350 (A) and (B)





I, George
J. Coates, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Coates International,
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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we
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 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 controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):




a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which 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.




March
      30, 2009
              By:
              /s/ George
      J. CoatesGeorge
      J. CoatesPrincipal
      Executive Officer
|   | (1) |   | The      Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period      ended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”)  fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      as amended; and |   |
|--------|-----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2) |   | The      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                              |                                                                           |                            |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                              | VALLEY FORGE COMPOSITE      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.(Registrant)                     |
|                              |                                                                           |                            |
| Date: November 14, 2008 | By:                                                                  | /s/ Louis J.      Brothers |
|                              | Louis J.      Brothers                                                         |
|                              | President, Secretary      and Treasurer(Principal Executive      Officer) |

----
Option 3000 Plan Amendment


    Exhibit
      10(d)

    


    AMENDMENT
      NUMBER ONE TO THE WALGREEN CO. OPTION 3000 PLAN

    


    


    Effective
      October 11, 2006, Article 4 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read
      as
      follows:

    


    "Article
      4. Changes
      in Capitalization.
      In the
      event of any change (increase or decrease) in the outstanding shares of the
      Company by reason of a stock dividend, recapitalization, merger, consolidation,
      stock split, split up, spin off, combination or exchange of shares,
      reorganization, liquidation, or other change in corporate capitalization, the
      aggregate number and class of Shares available under this Plan, the number
      and
      class of Shares subject to each outstanding Option, the Option prices, and
      the
      limit on the number of Shares that may be granted to any participant under
      Section 5.1 shall be appropriately and proportionately adjusted by the Committee
      to prevent dilution or enlargement of rights and preserve the value of
      outstanding awards; provided that fractional Shares shall be rounded to the
      nearest whole Share. The Committee’s determination shall be final and
      conclusive."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1846 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1846

        To extend the suspension of duty on cloquintocet-mexyl.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2009

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend the suspension of duty on cloquintocet-mexyl.

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

SECTION 1. CLOQUINTOCET-MEXYL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.57 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to cloquintocet-mexyl) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered April 19, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in misclassifying, for procedural purposes, a statement made by him to the police as inculpatory rather than exculpatory, and that therefore, by instructing, the jury that the People have the burden of proving the voluntariness of his statement beyond a reasonable doubt, the court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. We note initially that the court’s charge did not classify, characterize, or label the defendant’s explanation as "inculpatory” or as anything other than a "statement.” In any event, we find the defendant’s statement to be inculpatory *(see, People v Sanchez,*92 AD2d 595, 596, *affd*61 NY2d 1022). We also note that before trial the defendant moved to suppress the statement as involuntary *(see,*CPL 60.45, 710.20 [3]). Because the statement was an admission, the court properly assigned the burden of proof to the People *(see,*1 CJI[NY] 11.01).

We agree with the People’s acknowledgement that the trial court, in making reference in its charge to the "truthfulness” of the defendant’s statement, may have used language that, when taken out of context, was somewhat ambiguous. However, the charge, when read as a whole, adequately assigned the various burdens of proof to the People. Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we find that any imperfection in the court’s charge is harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

*854We conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks on summation, now challenged by the defendant, do not warrant reversal. The prosecutor’s remarks, for the most part, either constituted a fair response to the defendant’s summation or were within the confines of the evidence *(see, People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105; *People v Sykes,*151 AD2d 523, 524; *People v Geddes,*134 AD2d 279, 280; *People v Moore,*125 AD2d 501, 502; *People v Boute,*111 AD2d 398). In the limited instances where the prosecutor’s comments arguably constituted vouching for witnesses, we find that the court’s immediate admonitions and curative instructions along with the court’s general instructions at the outset of the trial and in its charge to the jury, served to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the defendant *(see, People v Geddes, supra; People v Ogelsby,*128 AD2d 556; *People v Saylor,*115 AD2d 671; *People v Boute, supra).*Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel C. Sibley, principal financial officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

 
| Date:   May 13, 2011 | /s/   Daniel C. Sibley                           |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Daniel   C. Sibley                               |
|                      | Chief   Financial Officer and General Counsel of |
|                      | Reef   Exploration, L.P.                         |
|                      | *(Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond Leo COWLES, Appellant.

No. 1247, Docket 74-1416.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Aug. 16, 1974.

Decided Sept. 10, 1974.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 13, 1975.

See 95 S.Ct. 790.

*68Lee Clary, Watertown, N.Y., for appellant.

George H. Lowe, Asst. U. S. Atty. (James M. Sullivan, Jr., U. S. Atty., N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before OAKES, Circuit Judge, and FRANKEL and KELLEHER, District Judges.*

*

 Of the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California, respectively, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the conviction.

Appellant, Raymond Leo Cowles, appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2. He was tried before Lloyd F. MacMahon, *Judge,*sitting by designation, and a jury, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving a supplemental *Allen*charge to the jury; in failing to ask certain questions of prospective jury members on voir dire; in failing to give a very specific instruction on 'the possible unreliability of eyewitness identifications ; and in permitting testimony of an admission made by appellant to a cellmate, without notification to defense counsel of such admission. The supplemental charge was not objected to and has regularly been sustained by this court. The questions proposed to be propounded to the jury were of a conclusory nature dealing with contingencies of a defendant’s not taking the stand and one juror believing that there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, designed to elicit the jurors’ commitment to abstract propositions; as such, the trial court’s discretion in denying them was not abused. United States v. Colabella, 448 F.2d 1299, 1303 (2d Cir. 1971). The requested instruction on eyewitness identification was argumentative, but, absent argumentation, was given in substance. Ample opportunity (by way of a proffered but declined continuance) was afforded defense counsel to overcome whatever surprise was generated by the cellmate’s testimony as to appellant’s admission.

Judgment affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 6083

OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

SCOTTY BODIFORD, Jail Administrator individual capacity official capacity;

MAJOR STOWERS, individual capacity official capacity; JIMMY THOMPSON, Mail Room Supervisor individual capacity official capacity; SERGEANT BOWMAN, individual capacity official capacity; OFFICER JENNINGS, individual capacity official capacity; OFFICER SHOKLLY, individual capacity

o fficial capacity; OFFICER COLLIER, individual capacity official capacity

,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

JOSEPH KERNELL, Greenville County Administrator individual capacity official capacity; JOHN VANDERMOSTEN, Interim Assistance County Administrator individual capacity official capacity; ENNIS FANT, individual capacity official capacity; WILLIS MEADOWS, individual capacity official capacity; LYNN BALLARD, individual capacity official capacity; JOE DILL, individual capacity official capac ity; BUTCH KIRVENY, individual capacity official capacity; SID CATES, individual capacity official capacity; RICK ROBERT, individual capacity official capacity; FRED PAYNE, individual capacity official capacity; XANTHENE NORRIS, individual capacity officia l capacity; LIZ SEMAN, individual capacity official capacity; BOB TAYLOR, individual capacity official capacity; GREENVILLE COUNTY COUNCIL,

Defendants.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at
Greenville

. R. Bryan Harwell

, Chief District Judge. ( 6:18

- cv

- 00355

- RBH )

Submitted : May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se. Carly Davis, Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Olandio Ray Workman appeals the district court’s order s accepting the

recommendation s of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reason s stated by the district court. Workman v. Bodiford

,

No. 6:18

- cv

- 00355

- RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2018 & Dec. 28, 2018) . We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This certification is furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies this annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the year ended January 2, 2005 of COMSYS IT Partners, Inc. (the Issuer).



In connection with the Form 10-K, each of the undersigned, Michael T. Willis,
the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Issuer, and Joseph C. Tusa, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of their knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the dates and for the
periods indicated in the Form 10-K.
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 31, 2005.



By:

/s/    MICHAEL T. WILLISName:

Michael T. WillisTitle:

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officerand PresidentBy:

/s/    JOSEPH C. TUSA,
JR.Name:

Joseph C. Tusa, Jr.Title:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### 88-19 193rd Street Realty Corp., Respondent, v Eanos Morse et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated September 20, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike their first affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2), an order of the same court, dated December 5, 1989, which denied their motion for reargument and renewal.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 5, 1989, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 20, 1989, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ first affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction premised upon improper service of process, because the plaintiff adequately rebutted the defendants’ sole objection to service.

Furthermore, the "new” information presented by the defendants in support of their second motion consisted of additional challenges to service, based on certain requirements set forth in CPLR 308 (2). These arguments were not raised on the initial motion, and the defendants have offered no valid excuse for not doing so. Therefore, the motion was in actuality a motion for reargument. An order denying reargument is not *520appealable *(see, Wodecki v Carty,*167 AD2d 398). Keeper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
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 Fresh Harvest Products, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2009 (the Report), the undersigned, Michael Jordan Friedman, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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.





/s/ Michael Jordan Friedman

_________________________________________

Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer

And Chief Financial Officer



Date: March 17, 2009
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3498

_____________________________
E RVIN J. L EWIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. January 25, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B ILBREY , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Ervin J. Lewis, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody , Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# EUR-Lex - 32006M4448 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32006M4448

**Commission Decision of 11/12/2006 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4448 - ICA BALTIC / RIMI BALTIC) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

Brussels, 11.12.2006

SG-Greffe(2006) D/207605

To the notifying party:

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

Subject: Case No COMP/M.4448 – ICA Baltic / Rimi Baltic

Notification of 02.11.2006 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1]

Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C275, 11.11.2006, p.13

1. On November 2, 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking ICA Baltic AB, a 100% subsidiary of ICA AB (together “ICA”, Sweden), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the joint venture Rimi Baltic AB (“Rimi”, Sweden), between ICA and Ruokakesko OY (“Kesko”, Finland), by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for ICA: retail sales of daily consumer goods;

- for Rimi: retail sales of daily consumer goods in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph d, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed

Philip LOWE

Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

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