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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven D. Hunt, certify that:

       1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof U.S. Premium Beef, LLC;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financialreporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

     a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8523

WILLIE MCCRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. R. NICHOLSON; G. K. AULT; LIEUTENANT FEURY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JAIL PHYSICIAN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-94-1430-AM)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. M. Adams, SPOTTS, SMITH,

FAIN & RAWLS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Gary Albert Godard, GODARD,

WEST & ADELMAN, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. McCray v. Nicholson, No. CA-94-1430-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 23 and

Nov. 22, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
RICKIE FRANCES GOLDSMITH, JR.

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

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

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 996

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 17, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh, Judge

. Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela J o Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief

- Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS

, OSTERHAUS

, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

115) ll-K-(B)-104 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:52 AM Sheet 115 of 3 25 
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. A-83-27 

II-K-(B)-104 

April 8, 1983 

Mr. Robert Short 

Economic Analysis Branch 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-12 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-02-3564, Work Assignment #9 

Dear Robert: 

In our meeting on March 17, 1983, it was suggested that perhaps two sets 

of IFCAM runs would be prepared for the preliminary results of the 

industrial boiler NSPS S0_ impact analysis. One set would correspond 

with recent American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA) new industrial fossil fuel-fired boiler sales forecasts. The other set would 

correspond with the projected growth in industrial boiler fossil fuel 

demand used in the recent DOE analysis of natural gas wellhead price 

deregulation proposals. 

EEA is planning to produce IFCAM results for 1986-1990 and 1986-1995 for 

the preliminary industrial boiler NSPS S0_ impact analysis. However, 

the recent ABMA projections (dated November 17, 1982 and March 18, 1983) 

do not extend beyond 1988. If you wish to review a set of IFCAM results 

which is compatible with ABMA projections, what should we assume the new 

industrial fossil fuel-fired boiler sales will be between 1988 and 1995? 

The attached table presents a projection of the number of new industrial 

fossil fuel-fired boilers which may be subject to the revised SO^ NSPS. 

This table corresponds with the projections of industrial fossil fuel 

demand which was forwarded to you in a letter dated April 6, 1983. This 

table summarizes an alternative to an "ABMA-compatible" projection of 

the number of new industrial fossil fuel-fired boilers. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Hogan 

TH:mk 

Attachment 

cc: Al Wehe 
P.3 

PROJECTIONS OF THE NUMBER OF NEW INDUSTRIAL 

FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED BOILERS3 

Size Class First Year of Operation 

(MMBtu/hr) 1986-1990 1986-1995 

50-75 

75-100 

100-150 

150-200 

200-250 

>250 

Total (>50) 

Includes new boilers designed to burn natural gas, distillate 

fuel oil, residual fuel oil or coal. 

By comparison, on March 18, 1983, ABMA predicted 498 new gas/ 

oil and coal domestic industrial boiler orders (each larger 

than 50,000 lb steam per hour) for the 1984-1988 period. 

373 

162 

222 

134 

51 

130 

l,072b 

948 

554 

630 

283 

111 

273 

2,799
#### James CURTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INSURED LLOYD’S, Defendant and James Odiorne, Appellant.

No. 88-330.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 28, 1989.

Thomas & Dunahoe, Gerard Thomas and Robert Thomas, Natchitoches, for plaintiff/appellee.

Harrington & Harrington, Rodney Harrington, Natchitoches, and Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Michael P. Mentz, Metairie, for defendants/appellants.

*1325Campbell, Campbell *&*Johnson, Mark 0. Foster, Minden, Henry H. Bernard, Baton Rouge, Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Brian Homza, Shreveport, Fish, Montgomery & Robinson, Roy Fish, Minden, for defendants/appellees.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and DOUCET, JJ.

DOUCET, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated case of *Charlotte Krueger v. Billy Tabor, et al.,*546 So.2d 1317 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1989), rendered this day, the judgment appealed is REVERSED IN PART, AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED in accordance with the views expressed in the companion case.

REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Christopher BRANTLEY # 116948 v. COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, NUMBER 19717-KH, and 3rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln, State of Louisiana, Number 30699.

No. 88-KH-0067.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Brantley, Christopher; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 30699; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19717-KH.

Denied. The application is premature for the reasons stated by the courts below.
Exhibit 32.1



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


In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strategic
Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John P. O'Shea, President of the
Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

     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 or operations of the
        Company.



/s/ JOHN P. O'SHEA                                               March 30, 2016
---------------------------------
John P. O'Shea
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT FOF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
and 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.
 August 6, 2009
    /s/  Michael H. LeeMichael H. LeePresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2009
    /s/  Francis M. ColalucciFrancis M. ColalucciSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 61
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40526

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERNESTO RIVERA-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-1040-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ernesto RiveraFlores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera-Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40526 Document: 00512540646 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
No. 13-40526

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40526 Document: 00512540646 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
----

|   | Dated:      March 17, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   |                                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | /s/      Michael P. Moran            |
|   | Michael      P. Moran                |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer         |
|   |                                 |
|   | /s/      Stephen A. Maggio      |
|   | Stephen      A. Maggio               |
|   | Interim      Chief Financial Officer |
EX-4.6





 Exhibit 4.6 
  





 
 The corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT * * is/are the registered owner(s) of * *Shares of the
CLASS B COMMON STOCK of Airbnb, Inc. I transferable only on’ the books of the Corporation by the ) hereof in’ person or by Attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. : : · ‘ , . · . : · . ! /
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this day of C5 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS BARON CORPORATE SUPPLIES 












 



 
 For value Received, .hereby sell, assign and transfer unto . Shares of the Common Stock of the within named Corporation, represented by
the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said shares of said Common Stock on the books of the said Corporation, pursuant to the provisions of the By~ Laws thereof, with full powers of
substitution in the premises. Dated . A.D. •    . In Presence of:
#### STATE ex rel. John Harold MULDOON v. Hon. Rudolph F. BECKER, III, Judge, Criminal District Court.

No. 87-KH-1187.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Muldoon, John Harold; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “E”, No. 264-505.

Denied.
#### OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY and Crawford & Company, Appellants, v. Gary D. NEELY, Appellee.

No. BE-451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 17, 1985.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 15, 1986.

Jack A. Langdon, of Jack A. Langdon, P.A., Gainesville, for appellants.

James G. Feiber, Jr., of Salter, Feiber & Yenser, Gainesville, for appellee.

ZEHMER, Judge.

The employer/servicing agent appeals an award of temporary total disability and permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees.

The deputy’s finding that all of claimant’s injuries were a direct and natural result of his compensable industrial accident is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as reflected by the testimony of Dr. Carson. We therefore affirm the award of temporary total disability and permanent total disability benefits.

As the employer/servicing agent argues and claimant concedes, the deputy’s order does not accurately reflect the parties’ pretrial stipulation as to attorney’s fees. We therefore vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand to the deputy commissioner for proper determination of whether such fees are payable. We note that attorney’s fees may be properly awarded in this case under section 440.-34(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), since the employer/servicing agent, although admitting compensability of certain injuries, unsuccessfully denied compensability of other injuries due to an alleged lack of causal relationship. *Farm Stores, Inc. v. Harvey,*474 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); *Hillsborough County School Board v. Hilburn,*472 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); *Singletary v. Mangham Construction Co.,*471 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

NIMMONS, J., and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
NO. 07-06-0056-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 16, 2006

______________________________

RODGER WAYNE MITCHELL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;

NO. A3024-0506; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Rodger Wayne Mitchell (appellant) appeals his conviction for burglary of a

habitation. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to twenty years confinement and a

fine of $10,000. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together
1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

with an Anders1

 brief, in which he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the

appeal was without merit. Appellant filed a response on August 4, 2006.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel reviewed

the various stages of the trial and discussed several potential areas for appeal. However,

he adequately explained why each argument lacks merit. We have also conducted our

own review of the record and appellant’s response to assess the accuracy of appellate

counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.3d

503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal any reversible error. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
1

**MEMORANDUM TO:**  Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency **FROM:** Eastern Research Group, Inc. **DATE:** November 2 1 , 2011 **SUBJECT:** Economic Impact Anal ys is: Reconsideration Proposal Inputs Comparison
An economic impact analy sis for existing CI SWI units was conducted at promulgation, using inputs presented previously in a separate memorandum

. 1 During the reconsideration process, changes were made to the CI SWI inventory , emission limits, and control cost calculations. Almo st all of these changes occurred within the energy recovery unit and waste

- burning kiln subcategories of CI SWI units. Consequently , the inputs used for anal yz ing economic impacts have changed as well. This memorandum compares the economic impact inputs use d at promulgation to the inputs used for the reconsideration anal ys es.
**C HANGES IN**  **E CONOMIC**  **I NPUTS**  Table 1 shows the list of facilities in the CI SWI inventory and their corresponding lowest cost compliance options at the final rule (February 2011), reconsi deration proposal, and the difference between both estimates . For reconsideration, five facilities (14 units) were added to the inventory

(these are indicated in red text), and five facilities (7 units) were removed from the inventory (these are indicated in gray ). Three of the facilities removed from the inventory

were small entities. Over all existing units, the total cost of the lowest cost option increased b y $268 million in capital costs and $ 53 million in annual costs. As shown in Table 1, much of th is increase can be attributed to the compliance costs for the 14 units that were added to the inventory (none of which belong to small entities). For small entities that remain in the CI SWIinventory , costs are the same at reconsideration as they

were at promulgation. The three small entities that were removed from the inventory

decreased the overall small entity costs by $43 million in capital costs and $20 million in annual costs.
**R EFERENCES**  1. “ Revised Economic Imp act Analysis Inputs for Existing CISW I Units ” Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 12, 2011.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1000

KEVIN JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JUDGE DOYET EARLY; LAB 

CORP; DR. GEORGE MAHA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. 

(1:11-cv-03110-MBS)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Jones seeks to appeal a magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation that his civil rights complaint be 

dismissed. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for seizure and dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ PETER R. HUNTSMAN     |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|
| Peter R. Huntsman         |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| November 14, 2005         |   |

 

----