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


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John D. Watt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Tengtu International Corp.;

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. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a 14 and 15d 14) for the registrant and we 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 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
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this 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 officer 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 function):

         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 officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not 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:    October 14, 2003


/s/ John D. Watt
---------------------
John D. Watt
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENT OF INCOME
FOR YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1998 AND THE BALANCE SHEET AT APRIL 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000849433
<NAME> ANSOFT CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,677
<SECURITIES>                                     6,703
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,823
<PP&E>                                           3,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                     640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,180
<SALES>                                         19,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,283
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
#### Kalmar Unemployment Compensation Case.

*260Argued December 13, 1961.

*M.*Mindlin, with him *Jackson M. Sigmon,*and *Mindlin and*Sigmon, for appellant.

*Sydney*Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him *David*Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

January 16, 1962:

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

In this unemployment compensation appeal the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review all found that the claimant’s discharge was due to willful misconduct so as to disqualify him for benefits under §402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(e).

The claimant, Lewis C. Kalmar, was last employed by the General Cigar Company, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as a fireman and watchman, on February 16, 1961. He was employed for one year and nine months and his duties consisted of taking care of the boiler, the fire, *261and making hourly rounds with a punchclock. He was paid an hourly rate of $1.32 and his shift began at 12:00 midnight and terminated at 6:00 o’clock A.M., the following morning.

The company had a regulation that the fireman and watchman was not to leave his post until the employee for the next shift arrived to relieve him. As they were tending a boiler and fire, as well as making hourly rounds, the necessity and reasonableness of the rule is apparent. If the relief employee failed to appear the employee would be paid for remaining at his post for the extra time necessary and this happened, for various reasons, from time to time.

On December 9, 1960, the claimant violated this regulation by leaving his post before his relief arrived. His employer testified, “I warned him and told him that if he did it again, I would have to leave him go.” On February 15, he went home at 6 o’clock, his superior received a call that his relief would be late because of automobile trouble but when he went to look for the claimant he had already left his post. There was some conflict of testimony but the credibility of witnesses is for the board and the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence. His main defense was that his relief had been guilty of violation of duty. This is, of course, no defense to his dereliction of duty.

The evidence clearly supports the findings that he was warned by his employer that failure to remain at his post would result in his discharge and despite this definite warning he left his post on February 15 before being relieved. This was clearly a willful disregard of the employer’s interest and the violation of a reasonable and necessary regulation. By leaving his post he left the plant unguarded and the boiler and fire unattended. This action falls squarely within the definition of willful misconduct. *Koble Unemployment Compensation Case,*190 Pa. Superior Ct. 565, 155 A. 2d 223*262(1959); *Gagliardi Unemployment Compensation*Case, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 142, 141 A. 2d 410 (1958).

Decision affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices 

# Order

September 3, 2013

146386

- 7(77)

____________________________________

In re APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL

TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR

EXPEDITED SITING CERTIFICATE

____________________________________

ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES

ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY,

Appellee,

v SC: 146386

COA: 303009

Public Service Commission:

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 00

- 016200

COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION

COMPANY, d/b/a ITC TRANSMISSION,

Petitioner

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant,

and

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER AGENCY,

and MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC

ASSOCIATION,

Appellants/Cross

- Appellees.

____________________________________/

MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER AGENCY

and MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC

ASSOCIATION,

Appellants/Cross

- Appellees,I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 3, 2013

d0826 2

Clerk SC: 146387

v COA: 303040

Public Service Commission:

00

- 016200

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION

COMPANY, d/b/a ITC TRANSMISSION,

Petitioner

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant,

and

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY and

ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES

ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY,

Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 27,

2013 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
Aviation Fuel Tax Action Plan

The FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue; Proceeds From Taxes on

Aviation Fuel, (79 Fed. Reg. 66282, November 7, 2014) (Amendment) provides that state or local taxes on

aviation fuel (except taxes in effect on December 30, 1987) are subject to the revenue-use requirements in

49 U.S.C. 47107(b) and 47133, and may only be used for airport purposes. State taxes on aviation fuel

(imposed by either an airport sponsor or non-sponsor) may also be used to support a state aviation program.

The Amendment applies prospectively to the use of proceeds from both new and existing aviation taxes that

do not qualify for grandfathering from the revenue use requirements.1The FAA stated in the Amendment

that it believed that State and local governments should prepare and submit an action plan to the FAA by

December 8, 2015. Submission of an action plan will permit State and local governments a reasonable

amount of time to come into compliance to ensure that any funds collected from aviation fuel taxes will be

used for airport purposes.

Action Plans should detail:

1. The process to amend any non-compliant laws to conform to federal law on use of aviation fuel tax

revenues, and restructure general revenues to adapt to the dedication of aviation fuel tax revenue to

airports and State aviation programs.

2. A commitment to undertake the legislative process.

3. The process necessary to develop reporting requirements and tracking systems for discrete

information on aviation fuel taxes revenues; confirm that the accounting, tracking, and reporting

mechanisms will be implemented to ensure airport revenue accounts receive on a timely basis an

amount equal or exceeding the amounts collected as aviation fuel taxes; the requirements to ensure

the appropriations are implemented and are enforceable by state or local agencies.

4. The transition period for implementation of the Action Plans ends on December 8, 2017.

Action Plans should be mailed to:

Byron K. Huffman,

Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue SW.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Electronic copies may be emailed to Byron K. Huffman at 9-ARP-ACO-AVFUELTAX@faa.gov.

1

State or local taxes on aviation fuel taxes in effect on December 30, 1987) may be subject to

grandfathering status. The FAA has posted guidance on aviation fuel tax grandfathering, Aviation Fuel

Tax Grandfathering Action Plans, (Docket ID: FAA-2013-0988-0041, July 17, 2015) at

www.regulations.gov.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7777]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings <greek-i>1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-84-000.
    Applicants: AER NY-Gen, LLC, Alliance NYGT, LLC.
    Description: AER NY-Gen, LLC and Alliance NYGT, LLC submits their 
Application for Approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and 
Request for Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 3/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120320-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-629-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: 
Compliance Filing, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Letter Agreement 
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120320-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1296-000.
    Applicants: ResCom Energy LLC.
    Description: Amended Tariff Filing to be effective 2/3/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120320-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES12-23-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Second Amendment to Application for Authorization of 
the Assumption of Liabilities and the Issuance of Securities under 
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Wolverine Power Supply 
Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120316-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 21, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7777 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Barbara Ann Taylor Page ROBINSON v. James Steven ROBINSON.

No. 87-CC-1985.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 3, 1987.

In re Robinson, Barbara Taylor Page; Page, Barbara Taylor Robinson; applying for supervisory writ of review, remedial writ, prohibition and mandamus; Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 54006; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19528-CW.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated March 26, 1997, included in the
Registration Statements on Forms S- 4 (File No. 333-3585 and No. 333-22575), the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 33-73618) and the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-42354, No. 33-63510, No. 33-79654, No. 33-
79756 and No. 33-79664).



                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Phoenix, Arizona,
 March 26, 1997.
p. 1 of 2 

From: Charles D. Johnson [mailto:cdjohnson@aluminum.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:05 PM 

To: Putney, David; Palazzolo, Michael A. 

Subject: RE: Metals in anodes 

David, 

Thanks for your email. I forwarded your question to our work group, 

and we have ascertained that the As and Ni emissions from aluminum 

production are primarily associated with the consumption of anodes 

in the potlines. The coke used to produce anodes contains these 

metals at part per million levels. These metals are also present in 

alumina fed to the potlines, but this contribution is small compared 

to the amount from anodes. 

The presence or level of As and Ni in the coke depends on the amount 

of these metals in crude oil processed at the petroleum 

refinery. We are not aware of any studies underway on methods to 

remove or reduce As or Ni levels in anode grade coke. 

Please let me know if you have further questions. 

Regards,

Charles Johnson 

VP, Policy 

The Aluminum Association 

w. (703) 358-2981 

c. (202) 486-6601

From: Putney, David [mailto:putney.david@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:59 PM 

To: Charles D. Johnson; Palazzolo, Michael A. 

Subject: Metals in anodes 

Chuck/Mike, 

I’m coming back to the technical committee of The Aluminum 

Association for some additional information. Specifically, 

I’m looking at some of the modeling data I’ve received and 

searching for information on metals – especially arsenic 

and nickel. 

When I look at the Bayer process flowchart nothing jumps 

out at me as being a potential source of either of those 
p. 2 of 2 

metals. Am I correct in presuming, therefore, that the As 

and Ni emissions associated with primary aluminum 

production facilities would be associated with the 

consumption of the anodes in the potlines? And, if so ... 

Are either of you aware of any research or studies that 

have been (or are being) conducted looking for methods to 

remove or reduce As and/or Ni from the materials used to 

produce these anodes. That is, are there any methods 

currently available, or under development, to remove the As 

and/or Ni from the refinery bottoms before producing the 

anodes? If so, would you please send me some information on 

those processes (or links to helpful websites that may 

explain the process to me)? 

Thanks, 

David Putney, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 

Mail Drop D243-02 

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207 

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
#### Charles L. Lumb, Respondent, *v.*George J. Lumb et al., Individually and as Executors of George W. Lumb, Deceased, et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

*Lumb*v. Lumb, 154 App. Div. 944, affirmed.

(Submitted February 21, 1916;

decided March 7, 1916.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 7, ,1913, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff asks in his complaint a partition and division of real estate and an adjudication that certain parcels may be declared and decreed to be copartnership property, and that a division and partition of said real estate may. be had, and that the surviving partner, the plaintiff, be permitted to make *672an accounting of the proceeds of said copartnership, and that the balance of said real estate after an accounting be had be decreed to be real estate and be divided among the heirs by partition thereof. The following question was certified: “ Should the amended demurrer herein be sustained upon the ground that causes of action are united in the amended complaint herein, contrary to the provisions of section 484 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? ”

*William L. Gellert, Frank B. Lown*and *George V. L. Spratt*for appellants.

*C. Morschauser*and *J. E. Mack*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.

Concur: Collin, Cuddeback, Seabury and Pound, JJ. Dissenting: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase and Cardozo, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          51,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,669
<PP&E>                                           6,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,090
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   259,863
<SALES>                                        413,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               413,030
<CGS>                                          109,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               288,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,532
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,532
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,532
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>