alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 
 Certification:
 
 I, Gary D. Engle, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AFG Investment Trust C;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 13a-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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and
 
 c)  presented in this quarterly 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):
 
 d)  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
 
 e)  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 quarterly 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.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Gary D. Engle
 Gary D. Engle
 President of AFG ASIT Corporation,
 the Managing Trustee of the Trust
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 May 14, 2004
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

141785

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141785 COA: 298043 Jackson CC: 07-004301-FH JOHN ALBERT CONEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 3, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 results of operations of the Company as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Report.
 /s/ Steven M. Cavanaugh
Steven M. Cavanaugh
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 4, 2006
Table I

Percentage of MÍtk in CompetÍtÍve Areol

December 2008

3 or more handlers

4 or more handlers

5 or more handlers

Herfindahl of .25 or less

Herfindahl of .33 or less

Herfindahl of .50 or less

1b

2b

3b

4b

5b

6b

80.68%

74.64"/"

69.50%

43.O7o/"

53.790/o

68.48o/"

Prepared by:

Market Adm inistrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009

1. M¡lk in competitive areas pooled on Federal orders, divided by total pooled milk in all included states.

Page 1 of 1
Figure I

Counties wíth Three ar More paying Handlers

December 2008

Prepared by:

Market Adminstrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009
Figure 2

Counties with Four or Mare Paying Handlers

December 20A8

Prepared by:

Market Adminstrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009
Figure 3

Counties with Fíve ar More Paying Handlers

December 2008

Prepared by:

Market Adminstrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009
Figure 4

Counties with a Hertindahl-Hirschman Index of .25 or Less

December 2008

Prepared by:

Market Adminstrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009
Figure 5

Counties with a Hertindahl-Hirschman Index af .JJ or Less

December 2A08

Prepared by:

Market Adminstrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009
Figure 6

Counties with a Herfindahl-Hírschman lndex of .50 or Less

December 2008

Prepared by:

Market Adminstrator's Office

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 2009
EXHIBIT 31.1
IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.
Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the“Partnership”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:
          (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 Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005   /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ  Dennis J Tietz  President of CCC  (Chief Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of the ESTATE of Lillie M. BURKHART, Deceased, Osage Allottee No. 2185.

No. 50031.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 22, 1977.

Rehearing Denied May 2, 1977.

James A. Ikard, Oklahoma City, and Ramon A. Roubideaux, Rapid City, S.D., for appellant, Lillie DeCgyne Robideaux.

Kelly & Gambill, Pawhuska, for appellants, Jo Louise Goode, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of James David Morrell, deceased, Locowana Ingram and Fannie Mae Donelson.

Shoemake & Briggs, Pawhuska, for appellant, William Wabaunsee.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma and Amalija J. Hodgins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee, Oklahoma Historical Society.

BARNES, Justice:

In a probate cause final decree was entered July 16, 1976. Three petitions in error were timely filed. One of the Appellants, William Wabaunsee, filed on November 19,1976, an application for a stay order concerning time for certification of record on appeal, essentially asserting impossibility of preparation of the record on appeal. The ensuing series of orders by this Court and responses thereto by the appealing parties other than Lillie DeCgyne Robideaux clearly demonstrates that all Appellants decline to pursue the remedies afforded by Civil Appeals Rules 1.22 or 1.23, which provide alternative methods for preparation of an appellate record. The Appellant Robideaux failed making any response. None of the Appellants has sought before the trial court an alternate record and no Appellant has sought before the trial court a new trial.

Appellate review presupposes an appellate record sufficient to enable this Court to consider the allegations of error. Impossibility of preparation of a record on appeal is by statute made a basis for seeking a new trial under Section 655 of that title. 12 O.S.1971, § 651(9).

The fact of impossibility of preparation of a record in this appeal as contemplated under Civil Appeals Rule 1.20 seems uncon-troverted.

On motion by the Appellee, Oklahoma Historical Society, the three petitions in error filed in this appeal are each dismissed *1152for the failure by the respective Appellants and each of them to procure certification of completion of the record on appeal within the six-month interval prescribed by Civil Appeals Rule 1.26 considered in conjunction with common omission to seek preparation of an alternative record under Civil Appeals Rules 1.22 or 1.28 and common omission to seek a new trial under 12 O.S.1971, §§ 651(9) and 655.

Application for extension of time within which to secure preparation of the record is denied for the reasons set out herein, and the cause is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

CDI Corp.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (No. 333-112088, No. 333-123886, No. 333-123888) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-112752) on Form S-3 of CDI Corp. of our report dated March 7, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CDICorp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, and our report dated March 7, 2008 with respect to the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007, annual report onForm 10-K of CDI Corp. 

 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to theCompany’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, *Share Based Payment*, and related interpretations as of January 1, 2006, and the Company’s adoption of the provisions of Financial Standards BoardInterpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, effective January 1, 2007.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
              PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
       2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE
                             18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Alteon Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such
officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 9, 2005                  By: /s/ Kenneth I. Moch
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Kenneth I. Moch
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (principal executive officer)

Date: August 9, 2005                  By: /s/ Mary T. Phelan
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Mary T. Phelan
                                          Director of Finance and Financial
                                          Reporting
                                          (principal accounting officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AEROSPACE 

Bombardier Inc. 

400 chemin de la Côte-Vertu West 

Dorval, Québec, Canada H4S 1Y9 

www.bombardier.com 

TEL 514-855-5000 

FAX 514-855-7401 

July 9, 2010 

Re: Docket No. FAA-2010-0636 

Bombardier Aerospace is requesting an extension to the comment period for NPRM 10-10, 

“Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and 

Ice Crystal Icing Conditions” in accordance with 14 CFR §11.47. 

The published comment period is currently just over 60 days. We find this insufficient for a 

proposal of this magnitude. The comment period for NPRMs has typically been 90 days for 

proposed rule changes of far lesser significance and complexity. Given the potential impact of 

this rule, and the magnitude of the effort required to review it, we feel the comment period 

should be 120 days. At a meeting with the GAMA Technical Policy Committee in May of this 

year, the FAA was informed that 30-day comment periods for draft policy and guidance material 

was too short and that comment periods of 60-90 days were required to conduct sufficient 

review. A 60-day comment period for NPRM 10-10 is a step in the opposite direction. 

The rule as proposed is expected to have a significant impact on icing certification requirements 

and a longer comment period will be required to consult with all stakeholders. There are more 

stakeholders for this proposal than is typical as a result of its far-reaching impact. Beyond the 

expected specialties of ice-accretion analysis, flight sciences and de-icing/anti-icing systems, 

the proposed requirements would have significant effects on flight test planning, flight test 

operations, and the analysis of aircraft and engine performance. The estimated economic 

impact of this rule likewise requires significant review by additional specialists. This large 

number of stakeholders complicates the coordination of review activities because of the 

increased number of schedule conflicts, requiring more time to complete the review. 

The fact that the proposal differentiates between aircraft above and below 60 000 lbs with 

irreversible control systems introduces further complexity to our review, given that Bombardier 

Docket Operations, M–30 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, 

Washington DC 20590-0001
# C_2016202EN.01010401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/104

---

Article 132

(ex Article 110 TEC)

(ex Article 110 TEC)

1.   In order to carry out the tasks entrusted to the ESCB, the European Central Bank shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties and under the conditions laid down in the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB:

| — | make regulations to the extent necessary to implement the tasks defined in Article 3.1, first indent, Articles 19.1, 22 and 25.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB in cases which shall be laid down in the acts of the Council referred to in Article 129(4), |
| --- | --- |

—

make regulations to the extent necessary to implement the tasks defined in Article 3.1, first indent, Articles 19.1, 22 and 25.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB in cases which shall be laid down in the acts of the Council referred to in Article 129(4),

| — | take decisions necessary for carrying out the tasks entrusted to the ESCB under the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, |
| --- | --- |

—

take decisions necessary for carrying out the tasks entrusted to the ESCB under the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB,

| — | make recommendations and deliver opinions. |
| --- | --- |

—

make recommendations and deliver opinions.

2.   The European Central Bank may decide to publish its decisions, recommendations and opinions.

3.   Within the limits and under the conditions adopted by the Council under the procedure laid down in Article 129(4), the European Central Bank shall be entitled to impose fines or periodic penalty payments on undertakings for failure to comply with obligations under its regulations and decisions.

---
RECEIVED IN
The Court of Appeals
Sixth District

APP. # 06-15-00056-CR
APR 15 2015

T. Ct. # 5629-C

Texarkana, Texas , *
Debra Autrey, Clerk

COLLINS, PRO SE § SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
v § TEXARKANA
§ CHIEF JUSTICE MORRISS ITI
TEXAS § JUSTICE'S BAILEY AND MOSELEY
§ an FILED IN
§ The Court of Appeals
Sixth District

APR 15 2015

MOTION TO SUBSTITUE FILING OF FORM "CHALLENGE OF.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTE" Texarkana, Texas
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

NO.06-15-00056-CR

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE'S OF SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS.

Appellant would assert as a lay man Pro Se to ask mercy of not having
excess to website in prison. Nor does appellant have time through other means
to aquire Form in Question; By 4.21.15 as noted by clerk as too deadline.

This motion of substitution has been sent and filed with letter of Request
For Proper Form and a additional 10 days to file Proper Form and return to clerk

for filing, May lst, 2015 so as to render defendant's Appeal 'valid'.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Appellant would ask mercy be granted by the Justices of this Court.
Appellant's Notice of this issue post marked April 6th, 2015 not ‘received
until April 10th, 2015 (a Friday) due April 21, 2015 has no means by which to

receive a copy via Courts website.


STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

Appellant in good. faith made a attempt to go to prison law library on
April 11, 2015. Supervisor Ms. James was not on duty. Co-worker; CO Wilson when
asked about this clearly stated she wouldn't do it; she could not download from
6th Court of Appeals website, only 5th Circuit. Appellant suggested check for
form there. She "stated "no", to get out"; "use the mail."

Appellant will attempt to speak with Supervisor Ms. James on April 14th,
2015 when she is back to work, and any other means I can try to get Form before
April 21st, 2015.

In closing, Appellant would ask the Justices of this Court In The Name Of
Fairness give appellant time to, if by no other means be allowed time to receive
this Form from the Clerk and return in a timely manner via U.S. Mail/Prison Mail,
or Notice that Court will allow this Motion to stand as a "Challenge To Constitu-

tionality Of State Statute". Appeal Brief is ready to file.

PRAYER

Under DURESS Pro Se Collins pleads his request to’be heard in this Court as
my Appsal clearly shows questionable issues: AMEN.

LORD OF HOST BE WITH THIS GREAT COURT

. Vom
BA AnayCows L137
Billy Max Collins, Pro Se
TDCJ-ID # 1884849
1300 FM 655
Rosharon, Texas 77583
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:22 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Cc: Steckel, Andrew Subject: FW: Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction SIP Call

Attachments: SSM SIP_2060-AR68_Final_PreambleRule.pdf; SSM SIP final rule_Fact Sheet.pdf; McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Hi, Megan and Lisa,

Here is the notification to both the State of Arizona and Maricopa County, AZ. I sent it to them this morning in this one

email.

Colleen McKaughan

Associate Director, EPA Region 9

520

‐ 498

‐ 0118

From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:05 AM

To: 'hrd@azdeq.gov'; 'ecm@azdeq.gov'; 'philmcneely@mail.maricopa.gov'; 'michaelfulton@mail.maricopa.gov'

Cc: Jordan, Deborah; Steckel, Andrew

Subject: Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction SIP Call



### Dear Colleagues,

This message is a follow-up to my recent phone ca lls to let you know the EPA Administrator did sign a final action today to ensure states have in place air polluti on rules that apply to sources at all times, including when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated in state im plementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

EPA is calling for 36 states, including Arizona, and se veral air districts, including Maricopa County, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public heal th and ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. Your state will have 18 m onths to submit revi sions of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SI P is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.

As part of our notification to Arizona about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator fo r Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe, plus a prepublication version of the notic e and the Fact Sheet. We have al so posted a pre-publication

version of the action on our website

at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/emissions.html

.2 

### EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. If you or your staff have ques tions, please contact me at 520-498-0118, mckaughan.colleen@epa.gov , or Andy Steckel at 415-947-4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov

.

Colleen