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

I, David H. Roche, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Minn Dak Farmers
Cooperative;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

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

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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 our internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter (fourth fiscal
quarter) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting; and

5. the Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to our
auditors and to the audit committee of our board of directors:

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 our 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.

Date:    11-26-03                       /s/ David H. Roche
     ----------------                   -------------------------------------
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              67
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Martinez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), rendered on October 11, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three to nine years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


Consent of Independent Public Accountants

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report on the consolidated balance sheet of Personnel
Group of America, Inc. as of December 29, 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the two
years in the period ended December 29, 1996, included in this Form 10-K into
Personnel Group of America, Inc.'s previously filed registration statements on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-19541 and File No. 333-39361) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-31863).

                                                    /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina
  March 26, 1998.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1



                 Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Cray Inc. (the
"Company") hereby certify, to such officers' knowledge, that:

         (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
         period ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

                                            Dated: April 20, 2006


                                      /s/  PETER J. UNGARO
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                           Peter J. Ungaro
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/  BRIAN C. HENRY
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                           Brian C. Henry
                                           Chief Financial  Officer
#### Ruth Tauber et al., Respondents, v Charles Wald et al., Defendants, and Robert J. Dinerstein, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for libel, slander and defamation, the defendant Robert Jay Dinerstein appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated September 27, 1989, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action as against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the appellant’s motion is granted, the action is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against him, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiffs served the defendants with a summons with notice on or about October 7, 1988, alleging that the basis of the action was to recover damages for libel, slander and defamation. In response to the appellant’s notice of appearance and demand for service of a complaint, the plaintiffs sought and obtained an order permitting the depositions of two nonparty witnesses *(see,*CPLR 3102 [c]). Those depositions were completed on April 28, 1989, and, by notice dated June 1, 1989, the appellant moved to dismiss the action insofar as it was asserted against him, based upon the plaintiffs failure to timely serve a complaint *(see,*CPLR 3012 [b]). The Supreme Court denied the appellant’s motion, but directed the plaintiffs to serve their complaint within 20 days. This appeal ensued.

*466Dismissal of the action against the appellant is required because the plaintiffs, after being afforded prepleading discovery, failed to establish the existence of a meritorious claim against him sounding in defamation *(see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904; *Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*60 NY2d 685). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# C_2007010EN.01000201.xml

| 16.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4427 — SHV/Mammoet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 10/03)

On 18 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4427. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4427. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report
of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Adam Langley, Chief
Compliance Officer of Aspen Partners, Ltd., Managing Member of the Fund, 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, 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 Fund.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | Date: August 14, 2012                        
| | ---------------------------------------------
| |                                              
| |                                              
| | /s/ Adam Langley                             
| | Adam Langley, Chief Compliance Officer       
| | Aspen Partners, Ltd.                         
| | Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**




**RAVEN
        GOLD CORP.**




**CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**




**PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
        Bashir
        Virji, the Chief Financial Officer of Raven Gold Corp. (the "Company"), 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
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
        July
        31, 2006 (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 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 the
        Company.




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







Date:
                  June 22, 2007*/s/
                  Bashir Virji*
                
                Bashir
                  Virji
                Chief
                  Financial Officer, acting Principal Financial Officer, and
                acting
                  Principal Accounting Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

NELSON CAMILO NAVARRO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-2785

July 3, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141 (b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Manatee County, Frederick P. Mercurio, Judge.

Nelson Camilo Navarro, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Moore, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), rendered on February 1, 1989, convicting defendant of two counts of burglary in the *274third degree and sentencing defendant to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *2Vz*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134593 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134593 COA: 275745 Wayne CC: 01-002343-01 PHILLIP LAVELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 11, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

t1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Record of Decision for the Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative Hurlburt Field and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Final 
Environmental Impact Statement

ACTION:  Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: On February 6, 2012, the United States Air Force signed the 
ROD for the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MPHI) Hurlburt 
Field and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS). The MHPI ROD documents the Air Force Decision 
selecting Alternative 4, Mix Alternative (FEIS Sec.  2.3.6) in the FEIS 
along with the project commenalities described in the FEIS (FEIS Sec.  
2.1).
    The decision was based on matters discussed in the FEIS, inputs 
from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. 
The FEIS was made available to the public on June 24, 2011 through a 
NOA in the Federal Register (Volume 76, Number 122, Page 371112) with a 
wait period that ended on July 25, 2011. The ROD documents only the 
decision of the Air Force with respect to the proposed Air Force 
actions analyzed in the FEIS. Authority: This NOA is published pursuant 
to the regulations (40 CFR Part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of 
the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and the Air Force's 
Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) (32 CFR Parts 989.21(b) 
and 989.24(b)(7)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jay Nash; HQ/USAF/A4/7, 1030 Air 
Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1030; (703) 693-4001.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-5640 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 April 12, 2018High-touch leadership
        To reduce the potential of technological isolationism, leaders must focus on using high-touch tactics, including learning about subordinates, providing continuous performance feedback and taking ownership of the organization’s actions.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### In the Matter of Louis P. Kaufman, a Suspended Attorney.

Application for reinstatement denied, with leave to renew upon submission of detailed affidavit as indicated in the order of this Court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 16, 2022 No. 04-22-00269-CR Shelton Ray DAVISON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR2277 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant Shelton Davison filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s determination that he is incompetent to stand trial. However, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure expressly states that “[n]either the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling” regarding the defendant’s competency to stand trial. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 46B.011. Thus, it appears that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause on or before June 15, 2022 , why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order from this court. It is so ORDERED on May 16, 2022. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
#### STANLEY CHANCE *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Stanley Chance,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided May 7, 1998

The petitioner Stanley Chance’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 935 (AC 16872), is denied.

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Wright, Appellant, v Ramon J. Rodriguez, as Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered May 14, 1990 in Greene County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the State Division of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding to review a determination of the State Division of Parole denying his request for parole. However, in view of petitioner’s release in April 1990, the matter has been rendered moot *(see, Matter of Smith v Newberry,*154 AD2d 941, *lv denied*75 NY2d 705). Furthermore, insofar as it does not raise an issue likely to escape judicial review, it presents no exception to the mootness doctrine *(see, supra).*

Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.