alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Randall J. Fagundo, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of American Coin Merchandising,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures, and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 23, 2004              /s/ Randall J. Fagundo   Randall J. Fagundo   Chief Executive Officer
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 4, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00775

- CR

Gilbert M. ZEPEDA

, Appellant

v.

T he STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR5264 Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on May 6, 2015 . The appellant’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to June 5,

2015 . On June 3, 2015 , the appellant filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to

file the brief until July 6, 2015 , for a total extension of sixty days. The motion is GRANTED.

THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE

GRANTED . The Appel lant’s brief must be filed by July 6, 2015

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 4th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Shepard DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20996.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 27, 1986.

*895John Shepard Davis, Provo, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Dave B. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from various post-conviction orders of the district court, including the denial of a motion for a new trial.

In 1982, defendant was found guilty of theft, a third degree felony, in violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 76-6-404. He appealed and argued, inter alia, that the trial court erroneously permitted part of a written deposition to be taken into the jury room. In *State v. Davis,*689 P.2d 5 (Utah 1984), this Court affirmed the conviction and ruled that defendant was precluded from asserting the error on appeal in view of his failure to make a seasonable objection at trial.

After defendant’s petition for rehearing was denied by this Court and the case was remitted to the district court, defendant filed an amended motion for a new trial based on the jury’s access to the written deposition. The trial court denied this motion on the ground that it was not timely. Defendant appeals this ruling, alleging that he has now made a proper challenge to the error in district court. For the same reason that the issue was deemed waived on direct appeal (i.e., failure to make a proper and seasonable objection), the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Defendant also requests that the sentencing orders be declared invalid and that the case be remanded for resentenc-ing. However questionable the procedures employed in entering the formal order of sentence, the matter is now moot since defendant has served his sentence and has received a formal termination of probation. As stated in *Spain v. Stewart,*639 P.2d 166, 168 (Utah 1981), “Where the requested judicial relief can no longer affect the rights of the litigants, the case is moot and a court will normally refrain from adjudicating it on the merits.” The exception alluded to is where there is a continuing and recurring controversy but, because of the short time period for adjudication, appellate review of the issue is effectively denied. *Wickham v. Fisher,*629 P.2d 896 (Utah 1981). That is not the situation in the instant case. Since all questions raised as to sentencing orders are now moot, we will not address the merits of defendant’s arguments.

*896As a separate point on appeal, defendant contends that the court’s order of restitution was invalid due to irregularities before and during the restitution hearing. The record contains no formal order of restitution. The only record of that proceeding is an unsigned minute entry which is not appealable. *South Salt Lake v. Burton,*33 Utah Adv.Rep. 27 (1986).

The issues raised in'defendant’s amended motion for a new trial were addressed in the direct appeal, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of that motion. We decline to address any of the remaining issues (as to sentencing and restitution), since those issues are not properly before the Court.

*So ordered.*
EXHIBIT 5

Certification of Michael Doolan, Chief Financial Officer

In
connection with the Annual Report of Falconbridge Limited (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Michael
Doolan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
May 19, 2003

| | /s/MICHAEL DOOLAN                     
| | --------------------------------------
| |                                       
| | Michael Doolan
Chief Financial Officer

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

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Nicholas Marsh, Also Known as Nicholas V. Marsh, Deceased. Bank of New York, as Executor of Irene B. Marsh and Another, Deceased, Respondent; Adrienne M. Lefkowitz, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie Lambert, S.), entered March 21, 1990, which suspended preliminary testamentary letters previously issued to respondent Lefkowitz and expanded the powers of the temporary administrators, unanimously affirmed. Order of the same court entered April 19, 1990, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*revoked those letters, barred said respondent from serving as permanent executrix or trustee, directed an accounting of said respondent’s acts as preliminary executrix and appointed the Bank of New York permanent executor and trustee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There was no abuse of discretion in the Surrogate’s determination to suspend and, after a hearing, revoke respondent Lefkowitz’s appointment as preliminary executrix and to declare her ineligible to serve as a fiduciary in this matter in the future as the record supports a finding of improvidence with respect to at least one series of significant transactions and wilful refusal to obey the direction of the court with respect to another area of concern *(Matter of Menis,*137 AD2d 692; SCPA 707 [1] [e]; 711 [2], [3]; 719 [10]). Within two months of issuance of preliminary letters to Lefkowitz, said respondent, in May and June 1988, lent, without security, $1.5 million to two previously unfunded corporations which were wholly owned by the estate. As should have been foreseen, this extension of credit led directly to the estate’s liquidity crisis. The consequences of this depletion of cash were felt most severely by decedent’s widow (said respondent’s mother), who had the exclusive life interest in the testamentary trusts under the decedent’s will and who had extraordinary medical needs at that time in her own final illness. The Surrogate directed the estate to pay decedent’s widow $30,000 per month in two written orders, dated February 22, and April 11, 1989. Nonetheless, said respondent failed to pay said amount in timely fashion in June 1989 under the pretext that the estate had yet to receive verification of decedent’s widow’s expenses, when no such interpretation of the Surrogate’s two orders *337could have been made in good faith. When the estate was unable to make the monthly payments after December 1989, decedent’s widow, with the approval of the Surrogate, reported to placing a $500,000 mortgage on the residence she jointly owned with the estate. This action, detrimental to both the estate and decedent’s widow, would not have been necessary had said respondent properly preserved the cash assets of the estate.

We have not reviewed respondent Lefkowitz’s claim of misconduct by adverse counsel, as she has not perfected an appeal from the order dated August 27, 1990 denying her motion to disqualify such counsel. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1955 

To suspend temporarily the duty on acrylic resin solution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on acrylic resin solution. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ACRYLIC RESIN SOLUTION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Acrylic resin solution, betahydroxyethyl acrylate, acrylic 

acid, styrene, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, butyl methacrylate 

polymer (CAS No. 63076– 

05–1) (provided for in subheading 3906.90.50) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1955 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
<Page>


                                                                  Exhibit 99.1

                                March 29, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This is to confirm that our auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"),
has represented to us that its examination was subject to Andersen's quality
control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice, to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the examination, and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen
is not relevant to this examination.

                                   Sincerely,
                                   SLM FUNDING CORPORATION

                                   By: /s/ John F. Remondi
                                      --------------------
                                           John F. Remondi
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                   Exhibit 27.1

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC. CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
POSITION AT DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      71
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                              389
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4
<INVENTORY>                                 53
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           577
<PP&E>                                   7,414
<DEPRECIATION>                           3,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      558
<BONDS>                                  1,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                               1,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             4,472
<SALES>                                  1,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,925
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            466
<INCOME-TAX>                               133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        333
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                               333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.33


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 99-60062

_____________________ RAYMOND PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus JOHN F. DONNELLY, JR.; MICHAEL C. MOORE, Attorney General, State of Mississippi, Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

_________________________________________________________________ August 22, 2000 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The petition for rehearing is GRANTED to the extent that our reference to the defendant bearing the burden should instead place the burden on the petitioner. In all other respects, the petition for rehearing with respect to this published opinion is DENIED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

___________________________ United States Circuit Judge
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 Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the
Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, 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) | 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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Simon PedderSimon PedderPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 8, 2007
1

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 30, 2012

Subject: EPA

– Felman Corporation Teleconference Summary ( June 7, 2012)

From: Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated

To: Conrad Chin, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243

- 02)

I. Introduction:

A conference call was held on June 7, 2012 to d iscuss the status and content of the stack test protocol being developed by Felman Production for planned stack testing in July. Felman and Eramet Marietta (EMI) are coordinating their upcoming particulate matter compliance
tests in order to obtain additi onal data on manganese, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid (HCl). The plants are collecting this information on a voluntary basis with the intent of providing data for EPA to consider in setting stack limi ts for the final Ferroalloys Production National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). This memo provides an overview of the issues
discussed.

II. Participants:

Felman Production, Inc. John Konrady, Rich Lunn, Shawn McCutchan, Robert Po well Beveridge & Diamond : Amy Lincoln Policy Navigation Group : Troy Hillier West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection : James Robertson

EPA/ OAQPS : Conrad Chin, Jason Dewees, Chuck French, Stef Johnson, Robin Segall,
Peter Westlin EC/R Incorporate d (Contractor for EPA) : Beth Friedman

III. Summary of Discussions:

The following topics were discussed.

Felman and Eramet are coordinating development of their test protocols to ensure they collect comparable data. They believe this will address issues that exist with the current data set, where some pollutants were collected using different2 methods

, and address the plants ’ concerns whether the previous source tests conducted by them correctly adjusted for CO 2 concentration. The plants are using the test pro tocol from the 2010 information collection request as a starting point in developing their protocols. EPA provided the following comments on that protocol:

o The plants should disregard the direction to provide a correction to 2% CO 2

.

o The plants should pr ovide information on production rate data during the test.

o The plants should test PAHs at the stack at both plants.

o For mercury testing, the plants should use Method 30B. The EPA offered to send the plants a list of suggested test methods for their
review. The group discussed the potential to test for fugitive emissions at the roof. Felman noted that there are several roof vents (dog boxes) that are used to house fans. It is not physically possible to access these vents from the exterior, and
interior acc ess is prevented by the movement of the crane. There is also no measurable velocity at these vents. They added that emissions are the result of ladle raking, which is a limited event (15 minutes). The EPA noted that it would be possible to develop a via ble testing protocol given time and resources. Felman noted that they are considering closing some of these roof vents permanently to eliminate fugitive emissions from them.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 22, 2012, 8 a.m. to 
March 23, 2012, 5 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference 
Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in 
the Federal Register on December 9, 2011, 76 FR 76981.
    This notice is being amended to change the ending time and date 
from 5 p.m. March 23, 2012 to 6 p.m. March 22, 2012. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: February 27, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5288 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P