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

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of World Air Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Randy J. Martinez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act), 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 result of operations of the Company.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.



/s/ Randy J. MartinezRandy J. Martinez Chief Executive Officer
of World Air Holdings, Inc.


July 3, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen Hines, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment by the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered January 24, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court’s supplemental charge on constructive possession provided a meaningful response to the jury’s request for a definition of constructive possession *(see, People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 302, *cert denied*459 US 847; *People v Duncan,*46 NY2d 74, 79, *cert denied*442 US 910). The court provided the jury with a definition of "constructive possession”, which it repeated at several junctures of its supplemental charge, and instructed the jury that such possession must be knowing. Additionally, the court admonished the jury that "whether the defendant in this case constructively possessed the weapon is an issue of fact for the jury to determine”. The court was not also *731required, as the defendant urges on appeal, to provide the jury with a rereading of the original charge in its entirety. Moreover, there was no subsequent expression by the jury that its concern had not been satisfied *(see, People v Malloy, supra,*at 303).

We similarly réject the defendant’s contention that the trial court’s charge on the statutory presumption of possession of a weapon *(see,*Penal Law § 265.15 [3]) was improper by reason of the inclusion of the exception under clause (b) for drivers of automobiles operated for hire. The defendant was one of two passengers in a taxicab at the time of his arrest, and the gun was discovered in the passenger compartment of the taxicab. At trial, the defendant’s rebuttal evidence was predicated in part on imputing ownership of the gun to the taxicab driver. Under these circumstances, there was no impropriety in charging the jury with the statutory presumption of possession in its entirety. We also note that the court correctly instructed the jury that the presumption was permissive *(see, People v McKenzie,*67 NY2d 695, 696), and emphasized that the burden of proof remained on the prosecution throughout the case.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467; *People v Edwards,*47 NY2d 493). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Vincent Verdiramo, President of Serino 2, Corp. (the Company) do hereby 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.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 22, 2006



/s/ Vincent L. Verdiramo

___________________________



President
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 18 -C V

______________________________ TEXARKANA CONSTRUCTI ON COMPANY, I NC., Appellant V. H& R HOL DI

NGS, I NC., Appellee
On Appea l from the 202nd Judi cial District Court

Bow ie County , Texas Trial Court No. 07C0093-202

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Texarkana

Construction Company , Inc., the sole a ppellant in this case, ha s filed a motion seekingto dismi ss its appeal. Pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1, the motion i s g rante d. We d ism iss the a

pp e a l.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: April 14, 2009 Date D ecide d: April 15, 2009
EXHIBIT 21.01


                                                         List of Subsidiaries


<TABLE>
                                                            Jurisdiction
                        Subsidiary                        of Organization       Ownership
---------------------------------------------------    ---------------------    ---------
<S>                                                                                  <C>
Hartcourt Capital Inc.                                 British Virgin Island         100%
Hartcourt Companies, Ltd.                              British Virgin Island         100%
Ai-Asia, Inc.                                          British Virgin Island         100%
Shanghai Huaqing Enterprise Development Co., Ltd.      People's Republic of
                                                               China                  51%
Shanghai GuoWei Science and Technology Co., Ltd.       People's Republic of
                                                               China                  45%
Guangdong NewHuaSun Computer Co., Ltd.                 People's Republic of
                                                               China                  45%
WenZhou ZhongNan Computer Co., Ltd.                    People's Republic of
                                                               China                  51%
WenZhou ZhongShuo Computer Co., Ltd.                   People's Republic of
                                                               China                  51%
WenZhou Huaqing Computer Co., Ltd.                     People's Republic of
                                                               China                  51%
WenZhou ZhongNan Science and Technology Co., Ltd.      People's Republic of
                                                               China                  51%
WenZhou Lianqiang Network Technology Co., Ltd.         People's Republic of
                                                               China                  51%
Hartcourt Hi-tech Investment (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.      People's Republic of
                                                               China                 100%
Ai-Asia (Shanghai) Inc.                                People's Republic of
                                                               China                 100%
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Moore, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered on August 16, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 6 to 18 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—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1917 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1917

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather upper sports 
                               footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather upper sports 
                               footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN LEATHER UPPER SPORTS FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Other footwear      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          with outer soles                                                   31/2011.......
                          of rubber,
                          plastic, leather
                          or composition
                          leather with
                          uppers of
                          leather, not
                          covering the
                          ankle, the
                          foregoing for
                          youths and boys
                          and not including
                          house slippers,
                          tennis shoes,
                          basketball shoes,
                          gym shoes,
                          training shoes
                          and the like
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          6403.99.60)......

    (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>
```
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I, Gregory Rotelli, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Razor Resources Inc. for
the period ended July 31, 2010 (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 Razor Resources Inc.


Dated: April 7, 2011

  /s/Gregory Rotelli
  Gregory Rotelli
  President, Secretary and Director
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
  and Principal Accounting Officer)
  Razor Resources Inc.

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



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1, 2006 of COMSYS IT Partners, Inc. (the Issuer).

In connection with the Form 10-K, each of the
undersigned, Larry L. Enterline, Chief Executive Officer 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 15, 2006



By:

/S/ LARRY L. ENTERLINEName:

Larry L. EnterlineTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

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

Joseph C. Tusa, Jr.Title:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6925

GARRETT NEAL DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. CAMPBELL; SERGEANT WALKER, Correctional Officer; DR. CYPRESS, Medical Administrator/Dillwyn Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-03-534-7) Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garrett Neal Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Garrett Neal Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. Campbell , No. CA-03-534-7 (W.D. Va. May 11, 2004). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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
|   | (1) |   | The Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for                  the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-QSB”) 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-QSB fairly presents,                  in all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                         |                                                                                        |                       |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                         | **VALLEY                    FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**(Registrant)                |
|                         |                                                                                        |                       |
| Date: November 13, 2007 | By:                                                                               | /s/ Louis J. Brothers |
|                         | Louis J. Brothers                                                                           |
|                         | President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer)(Principal Accounting Officer) |

----
PURCELL LAMAR BAGLEY

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMEN T OF CORRECTIONS

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOS ITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4927

Opinion filed April 4, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Purcell Lamar Bagley, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.

ROBERTS, C.J., SWANSON and KELSEY, JJ.

, CONCUR.
·FecEx® 

Express 

October 8, 2012 

· Federal Aviation Administration 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601'Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, WA 98057-3356 

,.: i ~ 

Air Operations . , .. _,,,. Teleptiohe 901.224.4735 

Aircraft Systems.Engineering Fax 901.224.4819 

3131 Democrat Road 

Memphis, TN 38118 

.!)EF~"\RTMENT OF 

i f~ANSPORTATION 

0{::/'\ET OPERATIONS 

lOll OCT I 0 P 2: 1 3' 

Attention: Rules Docket No. FAA-2012-0859 

Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-090-AD 

References: 

/AI AD 2008-06-03 

. Dear Sir or Madam, 

In response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-090-AD, Fed Ex · 

Express offers the following comments: 

1: The new unsafe condition introduced rby the new actuator part number MA30A 1001 has 

not been explained. Fed Ex requests a more specific and detailed explanation of the new 

unsafe condition caused by the new installed actuator. 

2. If the existing AD 2008-06-03 is rescinded prior to the completion of the AD and before a 

new solution is introduced, can FedEx continue replacing actuator part number 

MA20A1001-1 with actuator part numberMA30A1001 or should FedEx stop all together 

installing the new actuator? 

3. Is there a specific serial number group that is declared unsafe within the new actuator 

part number MA30A1001? Has serial number group "-D" for the actuator part number 

MA30A1001 been reviewed and deemed as safe? 

Fed Ex is requesting clearer direction of the proposed AD. If you have any questions regarding 

these comments, feel free to call me at (901) 224-4683 or by email at yjamal@fedex.com. 

y::.r 

Yasir Jamal 

Aircraft Systems Engineering 

FedEx Express 

901.224.4683 

E-mail: yjamal@fedex.com
CERTIFICATION
     Exhibit 31.3
  I, Allen E. Larson, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Form 10-K of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative;  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; and  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.   Date:
     December 9, 2010
     
     /s/ Allen E. LarsonAllen E. Larson
Controller and Chief Accounting Officer


---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6917

RANDY L. VALENTINE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STAN BURTT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (4:06-cv-03221)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy L. Valentine seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Valentine that failure to file

specific and timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Valentine failed to file

specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Valentine has waived appellate review by failing

to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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.

DISMISSED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138487

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138487 COA: 278746 St Clair CC: 06-002887-FC JOHN DAVID GREER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.