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

                     Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

I, Harmon H. Hardy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Stelax Industries, 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d--15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

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

     b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
            the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of
            the end of the period covered by this report based upon 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 fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
            is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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

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




Date:    August 29, 2007         By: /s/ Harmon H. Hardy
         -------------           --------------------------------
                                 Harmon H. Hardy
                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                 Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
## SERVE D JUN E3 , 201 0

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH EMATTE RO F 

### RB K DEVELOPMENT , INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP10SO000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2010-019 9 

## AMENDE D PROCEDURA L ORDE R Paragrap h# 2 o f

th e Procedura l Orde r

i s amende da s follows : WHEREFORE , th e partie s b e an dar e hereb y ORDERE D t o adher e t o th e followin g procedura l schedule :

.. . O n o r before Septembe r

15 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , but

not limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s canno t

resolv e a discovery disput e the y shal l submi t th e disput e t o th e unde r

signe dfo r resolutio n i n atimel y manner... '

Cichar dC
. Goodwin ^ U.S
. Administrativ e Law " Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

The cour t doe s not anticipat e scheduling thi s cas e prior to Septembe

r 15 , 2010
.FA A Docke t No
. CP10SO000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^S O Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Stephe n R
. Snyder , Respondent' s Counse l Snyder , Birc h& Morgan , LL P 20 0 Wes t Mai n Stree t Syracuse , I N 4656 7 TEL : 574-457-330 0 FAX : 574-457-205 6 Rashaw n Ric hGeorge , Complainant' s Counse l Southern Region , ASO- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O
. Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , GA 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 20 2 366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
JEPTOFTRANSPORWION 

SERVED FEBRUARY 17, 2010 nnri; IS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RAINBOW AIR ACADEMY 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09WP0010 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0847 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On October 8, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to 

as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On September 9, 2009, Respondent Rainbow Air 

Academy (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. On February 9, 2010, 

Respondent withdrew its request for hearing, citing settlement of the matter. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 
SO ORDERED. 

1' _ . . , ^ /-I 1.,,; ^ Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
^v 

FAA Docket No. CP09WP0010 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Marvin R. Grimmett, President 

Rainbow Air Academy, Respondent 

2601 E. Spring Street 

Long Beach, CA 90806 

TEL: 562-424-0119 

FAX: 562-989-0508 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant: 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W,, Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by Cape Fear Bank Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Cameron Coburn                   
|                      |  | Cameron Coburn                       
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
From: Palazzolo, Michael A.

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:28 AM

To: David Putney

Cc: Bilskis, Patricia A.; Mitchell, Kathryn M

Subject: Intalco POM Test Data

David,

Attached are the results of POM emission tests performed on Potline C at the Intalco facility. This

facility operates sidework prebake (SWPB) potlines.

The attached file is a zip file containing the following:

1) ZipFile_Contents.txt

2) 2011_PotlineC_ DryScrubs_Operation_Status_during_POMtest.pdf (Copy

of records that show dry scrubbers operating during source tests)

3) 2011_PotlineC_WetScrubs_Operation_Status_during_POMtest.pdf (Copy of records that show wet

scrubbers operating during source tests)

4) report_2011_PotlineC_DryScrubs_POM.pdf (Source test report from source testing firm)

5) report_2011_PotlineC_WetScrubs_POM.pdf (Source test report form source testing firm

6) Intalco_Production_data_LineC.XLS (PODS data, Records that show C line p roduction during the

month of source testing)

7) 2011_Intalco_total_Potline_POM.xlsx (Spreadsheet that calculates total potline POM emissions)

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the test results.

Regards,

Mike

Michael Palazzolo

Alcoa Inc.

201 Isabella Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15212

- 5858

Ph: 412

- 553

- 4832
#### Mose HOUSTON v. AVONDALE-SHIPYARDS, INC., et al.

No. 87-C-1477.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

Reconsideration Denied Oct. 16, 1987.

In re Commercial Union Ins. Co.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5628; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 82-8515.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 149.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

I, Vincent J. Arnone, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Fuel-Tech N.V.;

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

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules l3a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c)       presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         a)       all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 15, 2004         By: /s/ Vincent J. Arnone
                                 ---------------------
                                 Vincent J. Arnone
                                 Chief Financial Officer,
                                 Vice President and
                                 Treasurer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Main Street andMain Incorporated (the “Company”) for the year ended December 29, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Michael Garnreiter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(3)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| /s/ Michael Garnreiter        |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Michael Garnreiter            |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
|                          |
| Date:  July 2, 2004 |

 

----
#### FIRST NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. Mamye Cannon, Wife of/and Wallace Wayne BRYAN, Phillis Margaret McMenemon, Wife of/and Robert Darrelly Copeland, Wendy Kornegay Wife of/and Horace Perez Rowley, III.

No. 89-CC-0291.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1989.

In re Rowley, Horace Perez III; Rowley, Wendy Kornegay; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 88-12391; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0143.

Denied.
#### Sol Andacht, Plaintiff, *v.*William Andacht, Inc., Defendant.

City Court of the City of New York, Special Term, New York County,

December 16, 1958.

*Moses M. Cohen*for plaintiff.

*Hublirer & Hay don (Harold Duhlirer*of counsel), for defendant.

Samuel C. Coleman, J.

This is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 201 *et seq.),*in which the defendant alleges an agreement (a collective bargaining agreement) to arbitrate as a bar. The defendant moves *894to stay the action pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1451); to which the plaintiff replies that" an action of this Mnd cannot even by agreement be submitted to arbitration.

The question whether such an action can be submitted to arbitration has not been decided by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in a decision which the Supreme Court declined to review *(Watkins*v. *Hudson Coal Co.,*151 F. 2d 311, cert, denied 327 U. S. 777) held that the act does not prohibit arbitration. It had earlier decided the matter in the same way in *Donahue*v. *Susquehanna Collieries Co.*(138 F. 2d 3, 6). There it had answered in the affirmative the question which it put to itself, ‘ ‘ Is there anything about the Fair Labor Standards Act which removes claims under its terms from the arbitration clause? ”

Our courts have held otherwise *(Garrity*v. *Bagold Corp.,*180 Misc. 120, mod. 267 App. Div. 353; *Matter of City Service Cleaning Contrs.*v. *Vanzo,*179 Misc. 368, affd. 266 App. Div. 660; cf. *Friedman Hat Co.*v. *Safrin,*82 N. Y. S. 2d 873).

The motion is denied. Settle order.
#### Joseph IMPASTATO v. Frank S. BRUNO.

No. CA-5729.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 12, 1987.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1987.

Stephen P. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, New Orleans, for defendant/appellant.

Stuart A. McClendon, McClendon and Denkman, Metairie, for plaintiff/appellee.

Before BARRY, KLEES and LOBRANO, JJ.

LOBRANO, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in awarding monetary damages in this summary eviction proceeding.

Plaintiff, Joseph Impastato, alleging non payment of rent for the months of July, August, September and October, 1985, filed a rule for possession of the premises at 531 St. Louis Street in New Orleans, La. Plaintiff also prayed for the subsequent termination of the lease and for all rents due.

Defendant, Frank Bruno, answered the rule admitting non payment of the rent, but sought, by way of reconventional demand, an abatement of the past due installments, plus all rents paid from January 1, 1985. He asserted that plaintiff had interfered with his peaceful possession and use of the premises. He also sought $88,500.00 reimbursement for the renovation of the premises, as well as mental and physical damages.

Following a hearing on the rule, the trial judge held that defendant had failed to pay rent from July 1st through the date of judgment, November 13, 1985. Plaintiff was awarded $2,000.00 in rent, subject to an abatement of $600.00 because use of the premises was made inconvenient and burdensome at times. The eviction was denied, and defendant’s claim for damages was dismissed.

Defendant perfects this appeal arguing that monetary damages cannot be awarded in a summary proceeding.

While it is true that summary proceedings should not be the vehicle to recover monetary damages, it is equally true that the defense of improper use of summary proceedings must be raised by dilatory exception. *C.C.Pro.Art. 926(3).*An exception to a summary proceeding shall be filed *190prior to, and shall be disposed of on the trial. *C. C.Pro. Art. 2593.*“All objections which may be raised through the dilatory exception are waived unless pleaded therein.” *C. C.Pro. Art. 926.*

Defendant did not object to the improper use of summary proceedings. In fact, it was he who sought an abatement of rent and monetary damages by way of his answer and reconventional demand. We distinguish *Devillier v. Devillier,*439 So.2d 667 (La.App.3rd Cir.1983), relied on by defendant. In *Devillier,*the defendant in rule was served the night before the hearing on the rule. He appeared in proper person the following morning and was unaware of the extent of the proceedings taking place. He was a layman who could not be expected to know the formalities of court procedure. The Court concluded that “[tjechnical pleading rules should not triumph over actual justice.” *Id at 669.*

Clearly, that is not the situation in the present case. Defendant is an experienced attorney represented by experienced attorneys. He sought monetary damages thru his reconventional demand in the summary proceedings. He did not object to its improper use, and thus waived his right to object on appeal.

AFFIRMED.
#### James R. BOGARD, Appellant, v. Judith J. BOGARD, Appellee.

No. 68015.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 26, 1986.

*44Donald R. Corbett, Orlando, for appellant.

Frank A. Taylor, Orlando, for appellee.

ADKINS, Justice.

We have for review *Bogard v. Bogard,*478 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which the district court certified to this Court the question of whether the trial court had properly considered the husband’s prospective pension as marital property for purposes of equitable distribution. At an en banc hearing on the issue, the court was evenly divided and certified to this Court the question as one of great public importance and as having a great effect on the administration of justice throughout the state. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla.Const., Rule 9.125, Fla.R.App.P.

The Fifth District noted conflict between *Clarke v. Clarke,*443 So.2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), which held that a pension may be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, and *Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer,*456 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), which limited consideration of such benefits to a source of payment for support and maintenance obligations.

In *Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer,*491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986), we recently quashed the district court decision and held that a retirement pension must be viewed as a marital asset in order to achieve an equitable distribution of property. Thus, we find that the trial court acted properly in considering the retirement pension. Further, applying the “reasonableness” standard of review enunciated in *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we find the court’s treatment of the benefits well within its range of discretion.

We therefore remand the cause to the District Court of Appeal with instructions to affirm the trial court’s disposition of the cause on the authority of our decision in *Diffenderfer.*

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ„ concur.

SHAW, J., dissents.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23(A)
                                                                   -------------


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
33-36826, 33-36827, 33-36828, 33-94214 and 333-10063 on Form S-8 and No.
33-36825 on Form S-3 of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 22,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998,
which report has been incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-K of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.

We also consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
33-36828 on Form S-8 of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated March 3, 1998
relating to the statements of net assets available for benefits, with fund
information of the Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan as of December 31,
1997, and the related statement of changes in net assets available for benefits,
with fund information for the year ended December 31, 1997, which report appears
in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.




     /s/KPMG LLP        
----------------
KPMG LLP

Syracuse, New York
March 22, 1999
#### Jessie Mae ANDERSON, Appellant, v. David W. ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 88-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 14, 1989.

Beverly B. Parker, Miami, for appellant.

Herbert A. Warren and Richard A. Warren, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Vandergriff v. Vandergriff,*456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); *Zulywitz v. Zulywitz,*473 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).