alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Stephen J. Hawrysz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Test Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant 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 (as defined inExchange 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SECRelease No. 34-47986];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, 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 material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 7, 2007       /s/ Stephen J. Hawrysz Stephen J. Hawrysz    *Chief Financial Officer*
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Crawley, Appellant, *v.*Myers.

Submitted December 13, 1961.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*79
      *John Crawley,*appellant, in propria persona.

*William S.*Wolf,' *Jr., Louis F. McCabe,*and *Arlen Specter,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Paul M. Chalfin,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *James C. Crum-Ush, Jr.,*District Attorney, for appellee.

January 16, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Tbe order of tbe Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County is affirmed on tbe opinion of Judge Victor H. Blanc for tbe court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 742.
Exhibit 32.2




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 of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, T. Don Waddell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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.




/s/ T. Don WaddellT. Don WaddellChief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2011
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 of SmartPros Ltd. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, the undersigned,
Allen S. Greene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stanley P.
Wirtheim, 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:

(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 of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: August
11, 2009

| |                         | 
| | ----------------------- | 
| | /s/ ALLEN S.
 GREENE    | 
| |                         | 
| | Allen S. Greene         | 
| | Chief Executive Officer | 
| |                         | 
| | /s/STANLEY
 P. WIRTHEIM | 
| |                         | 
| | Stanley P. Wirtheim     | 
| | Chief Financial Officer | 

---
#### Earl SNYDER, et al. v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION.

No. 86-CC-2490.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Union Carbide Corporation; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court, Div. D, Nos. 25755, 25756, 26642, 26883, 26890, 26907, 26908; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86 C 695.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., recused.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50353 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. AARON CORDOVA- AZ PE I TIA D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R
- 2507- 3
B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Aar o n Cor do va - Azpe i t i a ( Cor do va) a p p e a l s th es e n t e n c ei m p o s e df o ll o w i ng h i s gui l t y pl ea conv i ct i on f or c on spi racy t o i m port cocai n e, i m portat i on of cocai n e, con spi racy to p osses s w i t h intent t o d i st ribu t e cocai n e, an d p osses si on w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te co c a in e . C o r d o v a a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly er r ed i n denyi ng hi m a t w o- l eve lr educ t i on i n hi s of fens e l eve lbe c ause he w as

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50353

2 a m i n or part i ci p a n t. H e argu es t h at he w as only a c ou ri er w h o nev er han dl ed th e n a rcotics an ddidn ot k n ow the recipien t. U n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , ad is t r ic tc o u r tm a yd e c r e a s e ad e fe n d a n t ’s o f fe ns e l e ve lb y t w o l e ve l s if t he de fe nda ntw as am i no rpa r t i c i pa nti n t he cri m i n alenterpri se. I n order t o qu al i f y f or th e adj u st m en t , t h e defen da n tm u st h ave been “ sub st an tia l l y l ess cul pa bl e t h an t h e average p art i ci pa n t” or p e r ip h e r a l to th e s u c c e s s o f th e e n te r p r is e . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l lanu e va , 408 F. 3d 193, 203- 04 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng § 3B 1. 2 , com m ent . (n. 3(A) )
. Cordo va had previ ou sl y t ravel ed f rom M exi co to D en ver, C ol orado, w i t h t w o of t h e sam e coconspir ator s t o del iver v eh i cl es l oad ed w i t h na rcot i cs i n t h e sam e m an n er. C or dova adm i t t ed t hathe knew t he ve hi c l es w er e l oade d w i t h co c ai ne and t hat he w as t he dr iveron atl eas tone of t he t r i ps. These fac t s sugge stt hatC or dova w as neit h er peri ph eralt o t h e adv an cem en tof t h e of fen se, n or s u bstanti al l y l ess c u lp a b le th a n h is co -c o n s p ir a to r s . S e eUn i t e dS t a t e s v . B r o wn , 54 F
. 3d 235, 241 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); V

i l lanu e va , 4 08 F. 3da t2 03 . Cor do vaha s fail e d t o s ho w t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n was no t pl aus ibl e i n l i ght o f t he r e c o r d as a w ho l e a nd, th e r e fo r e , h a s fa ile dt o s h o w t h a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r lye r r e d
. SeeVi l lanu e va , 408 F. 3d at203- 04. AF F I RMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael SCHENCK.

No. 87-K-1046.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

In re Schenck, Michael; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KA-6434; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 84-944.

Prior report: La.App., 505 So.2d 280.

Granted.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 199

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the national nutrition program

for the elderly, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its establishment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 2001

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the national

nutrition program for the elderly, on the occasion of

the 30th anniversary of its establishment.

Whereas on March 22, 1972, President Richard Nixon signed

Public Law 92–258, which amended the Older Americans

Act of 1965 to establish a national nutrition program for

the elderly, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Elderly Nutrition Program’’;

Whereas the Elderly Nutrition Program has been expanded

since its inception in 1972 to include 3 distinct components: congregate meals, home delivered meals, and the

Nutrition Program for the Elderly in the Department of

Agriculture;
2

•HCON 199 IH

Whereas the Elderly Nutrition Program operates in every

State and most counties and cities in the United States,

providing seniors with guaranteed meals;

Whereas these meals each provide at a minimum 33 percent

of the recommended daily allowances of nutrients;

Whereas the Elderly Nutrition Program has provided more

than 4,700,000,000 meals;

Whereas the Elderly Nutrition Program is a vital component

of a service network, providing a continuum of home- and

community-based long-term care for seniors and helping

them to avoid premature or unnecessary institutionalization;

Whereas the Elderly Nutrition Program provides a powerful

socialization opportunity for millions of seniors to help

combat loneliness and isolation;

Whereas a strong national network of nutrition service providers and thousands of dedicated volunteers administer

the Elderly Nutrition Program; and

Whereas under the Elderly Nutrition Program, more than

272 million meals are provided each year to older individuals in the greatest economic or social need and to older

Native Americans: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That on the occasion of the 30th anniversary

3 of the establishment of a national nutrition program for

4 the elderly, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Elderly Nutri5 tion Program’’—
3

•HCON 199 IH

1 (1) it is the sense of the Congress that the pro2 gram is well-run and continues to achieve its objec3 tives on behalf of the senior citizens it serves; and

4 (2) the Congress—

5 (A) expresses appreciation for the daily

6 work of all the individuals, including volunteers,

7 who administer the program at the local level;

8 and

9 (B) recognizes the importance of the

10 present and future health and well-being of the

11 millions of senior citizens across the Nation, in12 cluding the maintenance of their independence

13 and dignity.

Æ
January 22, 2016



### Mr. A. Randy Pacheco 68-615 Farrington Highway, 14A Waialua, HI 96791

Dear Mr. Pacheco:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 105.17 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request, gives you some important information about how we have handled similar requests, and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request We entered your October 20, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 6818) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any more information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

If We Do Not Hear From You If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without telling you further.

### 2
If you have any questions or need more time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ 

### Brandon Roberts Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

EnclosureFor questions or comments regarding e-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr@nara.gov

. For questions concerning e-CFR programming and delivery issues, email webteam@gpo.gov

. 

## ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

e-CFR Data is current as of March 2, 2015

Title 14 → Chapter I → Subchapter B → Part 11 → Subpart A → §11.81

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES Subpart A—Rulemaking Procedures

§11.81 What information must I include in my petition for an exemption?
You must include the following information in your petition for an exemption and submit it to FAA as soon as you know you need an exemption.
(a) Your name and mailing address and, if you wish, other contact information such as a fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address;
(b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek an exemption;
(c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the relief;
(d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole;
(e) The reasons why granting the exemption woul d not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek the exemption;
(f) A summary we can publish in the F EDERAL R EGISTER , stating:
(1) The rule from which you seek the exemption; and
(2) A brief description of the nat ure of the exemption you seek;
(g) Any additional information, views or arguments available to support your request; and
(h) If you want to exercise the privileges of y our exemption outside the United States, the reason why you need to do so. 

### Pa g e 1 of 1 eCFR — Code of Federal Re g ulations

3/4/2015 htt p ://www.ecfr. g ov/c g i- b in/text-idx?SID=eee7bb3943bc 0292a08fb8b9feb89c23&node=se

...
#### Annie WILLIS v. George WHITFIELD, Administrator, Louisiana Office of Employment Security and Friends of the Zoo, Inc.

No. 87-CA-2236.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1988.

Rehearing Granted April 4, 1988.

David Williams, Mark Moreau, Mary Ellen Roy, New Orleans, New Orleans Legal Asst. Corp., for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank T. Scott, Jr., Denise A. Nagel, James A. McGraw, Bernard J. Francis, Sr., Ollivette E. Mencer, Vivian B. Guillory, Baton Rouge, Office of Employment Security, Ralph Capitelli, Richard Bordelon, Capitelli, Bencomo & Wicker, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons assigned in *Toney v. Whitfield,*519 So.2d 251 (La.1988), decided this date, the judgment of the district court is modified to declare the unconstitutionality only of the penalty portion of La.R.S. 23:1634 A. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., dissent.

WATSON, J., dissents for reasons assigned in *Toney.*
#### Glenda PECK, Petitioner, v. Joel M. MESSINA, D.O. and Sumesh Chandra, M.D., Respondents.

No. 87-1887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 6, 1988.

Garry W. Miracle, of L.D. Beltz & Associates, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Paula M. Walsh, of Saieva & Walsh, Tampa, for respondent Sumesh Chandra, M.D.

No appearance by respondent Joel M. Messina, D.O.

PER CURIAM.

This matter involves a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order which directed petitioner to produce a report of an expert witness who is expected to testify for petitioner at trial in her action against respondents for medical malpractice. The expert’s report was prepared at petitioner’s request to determine whether there was a medical basis for a malpractice action.

We deny the petition and, in doing so, we embrace the decision reached in *Mims v. Casademont,*464 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the third district held that “reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable.” *Id.*at 644. We do note that the legislature has recently provided a discovery privilege in medical malpractice actions for work product, such as the report here, generated by the presuit screening process. *See*§ 768.57(5), Fla.Stat. (1985). Petitioner admits, however, that section 768.57(5) is not applicable to this case because her malpractice action was filed before the statute became effective. *See*§ 768.57(10), Fla.Stat. (1985).

The petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is denied.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREAD GILL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 65 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 65

 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
           in Dirk S. Dixon, et al. v. Bruce Pearson, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
           in Dirk S. Dixon, et al. v. Bruce Pearson, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Dirk S. Dixon, et al. v. Bruce Pearson, et al., Civil 
        No. 97-998 (Cass Cty., N.D.), pending in North Dakota state court, 
        testimony has been requested from Kevin Carvell and Judy Steffes, 
        employees of Senator Byron L. Dorgan;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent Senators and employees of the Senate 
        with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating 
        to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Kevin Carvell, Judy Steffes, and any other former or 
current Senate employee from whom testimony or document production may 
be required, are authorized to testify and produce documents in the 
case of Dirk S. Dixon, et al. v. Bruce Pearson, et al., except 
concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Senator 
Byron L. Dorgan, Kevin Carvell, Judy Steffes, and any other Member or 
employee of the Senate from whom testimony or document production may 
be required in connection with the case of Dirk S. Dixon, et al. v. 
Bruce Pearson, et al.
                                 <all>
```