alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Hawk Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald E.
Weinberg, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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


/s/ RONALD E. WEINBERG
----------------------
Ronald E. Weinberg
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

March 26, 2004

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other
purpose.

                                       83
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D. C.

Motion of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. DOT-OST-1996-1203 for confidential treatment under Rule 12 (Form 41, Schedules B-7)

MOTION OFAMERICANAIRLINES, INC. FOR

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDERRULE 12
Communications with respect to this document shouldbe sent to: VIRASB VAHIDI SeniorVice President

- Marketing and Planning and Chief Commercial Officer AmericanAirlines, Inc. P.O. Box 619616, MD 5628 DFW Airport, Texas 75261

May 10, 2013 WILLIAM K. RIS, JR. SeniorVice President

- Government Affairs AmericanAirlines, Inc. 1101 17th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 FRANCIS C. HEIL SeniorAttorney AmericanAirlines, Inc. 1101 17th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 496-5642 francis.heil@aa.comMotion of BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D. C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. for confidential treatment under Rule 12 (Form 41, Schedules B-7) DOT-OST-1996-1203

MOTION OFAMERICANAIRLINES, INC. FOR

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDERRULE 12
AmericanAirlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby
moves that its Form 41, Schedule B-7 for 1Q2013, be accorded confidential treatment and withheld frompublic disclosure. The information for which confidential treatment is requested pertains to American's airframe and aircraft engine acquisitions and retirements. In accordance with the Department's Final Rule on SubmittingAirline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580, 41582, July 16, 2010, we are uploading our confidential report electronicallytohttp://esubmit.rita.dot.gov On June 5, 1995, by letter of James W. Mitchell, Director, Office ofAirline Statistics, the Department granted confidential treatment for a 10-yearperiod to similar data filed byAmerican. For the reasons stated in that letter, the current submission should also receive confidential treatment for 10 years.2 -

WHEREFORE, Americanmoves that the schedule being submitted electronicallyto the above-referenced website be withheld frompublic disclosure under Rule 12 for a period of 10 years.

May 10, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

Francis C. Heil Senior Attorney AmericanAirlines, Inc.
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gladys Lovella PIERCE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 17916.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 24, 1982.

*677Edward K. Brass, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant raises but one point in her appeal of a burglary conviction by jury trial. She contends that in putting her foot in a shoe at the request of the prosecution during her trial, she was denied her right under Article I, Sec. 12 of the Constitution of Utah that “[t]he accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.”

The record clearly shows that after a recess during which the court and counsel discussed the matter out of the presence of the jury, neither the defendant nor counsel made any objection to such procedure. Defendant complied with the request with the court’s agreement.

Defense counsel called a peace officer to testify on defendant’s behalf, who stated he had seen the defendant try on the shoes before. Over the prosecution’s objection, the officer testified that the shoes did not fit perfectly, as was also the case when defendant tried them on in the courtroom. The strategy of the defense almost obviously was that since the shoes did not fit, it was unlikely that the defendant was wearing them at the scene of the burglary where they were found, and that since defendant had not been identified positively, the state had arrested the wrong person.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, it appears that defendant had waived any constitutional objection. Not having objected to the demonstration at the trial court level, she is precluded from doing so for the first time on appeal.

Furthermore, the facts are not such that great and manifest injustice would be done if this Court does not entertain the issue sua sponte as an exception. This can be done in rare cases under Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, or under such exceptions as this Court considers of momentous concern in protecting constitutional rights previously waived. *State v. Schad,*24 Utah 2d 255, 470 P.2d 246 (1970); *State v. Cobo,*90 Utah 89, 60 P.2d 952 (1936).

Affirmed.

STEWART, J., concurs in the result.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-17-00220-CV 

In the Interest of G.V., III and G.V., 

Children 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From the 323rd District Court 

of Tarrant County (323-102780-16) 

December 18, 2017 

Opinion by Justice Kerr 

Dissent by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

 It is further ordered that Appellants Father and Mother shall pay all of the 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________ 

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |      |                               |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      August 14, 2009 | By:  | /s/ Matthew      J. Hammer    |   |
|                        |      | Matthew      J. Hammer        |   |
|                        |      | Chief      Executive Officer  |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 53 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 53

  To designate March 24, 1999, as ``National School Violence Victims' 
                            Memorial Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 1999

Mr. Hutchinson (for himself, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Feinstein, 
 Mr. McConnell, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Jeffords, 
 Mr. Helms, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Grams, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Brownback, 
Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kennedy, 
  Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Sarbanes, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Reed, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Campbell, 
  Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kerrey, Ms. 
  Collins, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
Hagel, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Lott, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. 
  Dodd) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             March 24, 1999

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To designate March 24, 1999, as ``National School Violence Victims' 
                            Memorial Day''.

Whereas approximately 10 percent of all public schools reported at least 1 
        serious violent crime to a law enforcement agency over the course of the 
        1996-97 school year;
Whereas in 1996, approximately 225,000 students between the ages of 12 and 18 
        were victims of nonfatal violent crime in schools in the United States;
Whereas during 1992 through 1994, 76 students and 29 non-students were victims 
        of murders or suicides that were committed in schools in the United 
        States;
Whereas because of escalating school violence, the children of the United States 
        are increasingly afraid that they will be attacked or harmed at school;
Whereas efforts must be made to decrease incidences of school violence through 
        an annual remembrance and prevention education; and
Whereas the Senate encourages school administrators in the United States to 
        develop school violence awareness activities and programs for 
        implementation on March 24, 1999: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates March 24, 1999, as ``National School 
        Violence Victims' Memorial Day''; and
            (2) requests the President to issue a proclamation 
        designating March 24, 1999, as ``National School Violence 
        Victims' Memorial Day'' and calling on the people of the United 
        States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Return Processing Delays Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 7, 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-(888) 912-1227 or (206) 220-6098.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Return Processing Delays Project Committee will be held Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notifications of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-(888) 912-1227 or (206) 220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: January 11, 2012.

Shawn Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2012-756 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       Consent of the Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-60865) pertaining to the Hawk Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan and
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68583) pertaining to the
Friction Products Co. Profit Sharing Plan; S.K. Wellman Retirement Savings and
Profit Sharing Plan; Helsel, Inc. Employee's Retirement Plan; Helsel, Inc.
Employee's Savings and Investment Plan; Sinterloy Corporation 401(k) Plan;
Hutchinson Products Corporation Employees' 401(k) Plan; and Hawk Corporation
401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan of our report dated March 1, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hawk Corporation
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
March 26, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.10

                CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                            CNA FINANCIAL CAPITAL II

1.)      The name of the statutory trust (the "Trust") is:

                            CNA Financial Capital II

2.)      Article 2 of the Certificate of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are Chase
Bank USA, National Association, Attn: Worldwide Securities Services, 500 Stanton
Christiana Road, 3/Ops 4, Newark, Delaware 19713.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Amendment to Certificate of Trust of the Trust this 11th day of August, 2005.



                                                     CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL
                                                     ASSOCIATION, not in its
                                                     individual capacity but
                                                     solely as Trustee


                                                     By: /s/ John J.Cashin
                                                         -----------------------
                                                          Name:  John J. Cashin
                                                          Title:  Vice President
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6723** 

VERNON SAMUEL BROWN, a/k/a Vernon S. Brown , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DANNY DUNBAR; SGT. ANGLA COLLINS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 9:09

- cv - 00920

- RBH

- BM )

Submitted : December 22, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit J udges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Vernon Samuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH & SADLER, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Vernon Samuel Brown appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2010 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Brown that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objec tions to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brown has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny as moot appellees’ motion to dismiss the
appea l. 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
#### Thompson, Appellant, *v.*Parmly, Appellee.

(No. 31446

Decided June 9, 1948.)

*Mr. Earl C. Pettersson*and *Messrs. Giblin & Giblin,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Bulkley, Butler & Pillen,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involyed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, -Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**I, David Mitchell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Macquarie Infrastructure Company Trust andMacquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the “registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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 on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2005     /s/ David Mitchell     David Mitchell  Chief Financial Officer
#### Michael BROWN, Individually and as Natural Tutor of the Minor Child Marcus Brown v. SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, et al., Michael and Jolene Brown.

No. 87-00732.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Westinghouse Electric Corp.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-0278; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 83-3214.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1122.

.Granted.
#### Donald CASLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ed NELSON, Sheriff of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 82SA262.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

April 18, 1983.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Saskia A. Stephenson, Deputy State Public Defender, Littleton, for petitioner-appellant.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, *1167Sol. Gen., Patricia A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellee.

DUBOFSKY, Justice.

The petitioner-appellant, Donald Casler, appeals the Arapahoe County district court’s discharge of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court discharged the writ because the warrant and supporting documents substantially charged the petitioner with violation of his parole in Florida. On appeal, the petitioner claims that extradition should be denied because he was detained for longer than 30 days after his arrest, in violation of section 16-19-116, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8).1 We affirm the district court’s discharge of the petition.

The petitioner was arrested in Arapahoe County on December 21, 1981, on the ground that he had violated his parole in Florida. He appeared in court on January 25, 1982, 35 days later. Colorado authorities served the petitioner with the Colorado governor’s warrant on March 21, 1982. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on March 24, 1982. The district court discharged the writ on April 2, 1982.

The petitioner contends on appeal that his detention contravenes the mandate of section 16-19-116 that a fugitive awaiting requisition documents be committed to the county jail “for such a time not exceeding thirty days.” It is well settled that issues relating to the detention of a fugitive are rendered moot once a valid governor’s warrant is issued. *Schumm v. Nelson,*659 P.2d 1389 (Colo.1983); *Morris v. Nelson,*659 P.2d 1386 (Colo.1983); *Michaels v. Caldwell,*646 P.2d 899 (Colo.1982); *Whittington v. Bray,*200 Colo. 17, 612 P.2d 72 (1980). Thus, the petitioner’s argument is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Section 16-19-116 provides:

> “If from the examination before the judge it appears that the person held is the person charged with having committed the crime alleged and, except in cases arising under section 16-19-107, that he has fled from justice, the judge shall, by a warrant reciting the accusation, commit him to the county jail for such a time not exceeding thirty days and as specified in the warrant as will enable the arrest of the accused to be made under a warrant of the governor on a requisition of the executive authority of the state having jurisdiction of the offense, unless the accused gives bail as provided in section 16-19-117, or until he is legally discharged.”