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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;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-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer, Chairmanof the Board of Directors and Director
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 30, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-1581

Lower Tribunal No. F16-21185

________________

Nimer Abdallah,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa 

Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Law Offices of Kawass, P.A., and Kristen A. Kawass, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Gabrielle Raemy CharestTurken and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
20600

#### Harada v. State

Affirmed
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the
undersigned:

      3.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      4.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.





Date:    November 12, 2002                /s/  Robert W. Peshek
     ----------------------               ------------------------------------
                                           Robert W. Peshek, Vice President
                                           and Chief Financial Officer


                                       26
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 Annual Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Miron Markovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

         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.


March 31, 2006                   /s/ Miron Markovitz
                                 --------------------------
                                 Miron Markovitz
                                    Chief Financial Officer
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Quality Assurance at the NVSL

Last Modified: 

Print

The National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) Quality Management System is

guided by a quality coordinator, area quality managers, and quality management

program assistants. A quality manual and core guiding documents define and direct

the NVSL-wide quality policies and procedures. 

Ongoing quality assurance activities include internal audits, management review,

corrective and preventive actions, and proficiency tests. Various external audits are

conducted on a regular basis, including audits by an accrediting body and regulatory

agencies.

View list of NAHLN and APHIS-Approved Laboratory Documents

Accreditation

In December 2006, the NVSL and the onsite Calibration Laboratory received

accreditation to the International Organization for Standardization/International

Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17025 Standard: General Requirements for

the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. Accreditation recognizes

the competency of the NVSL and Calibration Laboratory to perform the tests and

calibrations defined within the scope of accreditation.
In May 2012, the NVSL received accreditation for Proficiency Tests under the ISO/IEC

17043 Standard: Conformity Assessment—General Requirements for Proficiency

Testing. Accreditation was also granted for Reference Materials under the ISO Guide

17034: General Requirements for the Competence of Reference Material Producers.

Accreditation as a Reference Material producer and a Proficiency Test provider

recognizes the NVSL's commitment to providing quality reference materials and

proficiency test schemes.

The NVSL Quality Management System and scope tests areas are audited by an

independent accreditation body recognized by the International Laboratory

Accreditation Cooperation. Audits and surveillance visits are an ongoing part of

maintaining the NVSL's accreditations. The NVSL continually strives to improve its

Quality Management System and expand its scopes of accreditation.

Scopes of Accreditation

The scope represents specific tests or calibrations. View the current NVSL scopes of

accreditation below.

Biological—Ames

Chemical—Ames

Biological—Plum Island

Calibration—Ames

Proficiency Test Provider—Ames

Proficiency Test Provider—Plum Island

Reference Material Producer—Ames

Contact Us

For more information, email us at nvsl.quality.management@usda.gov.
# C_2019093EN.01006301.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/63

---

Order of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Beko (BECON)

(Case T-557/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 93/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 (Case R 41/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Beko plc and LG Electronics, Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | LG Electronics, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

LG Electronics, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
July 29, 1998

20970

#### Chester v. Riteway Builders, Inc.

Affirmed
23120

#### State v. Tangonan

Affirmed
#### Molokai Advertiser-News v. Anderson

22693

11/29/2000

Vacated and Remanded
H. Res. 539 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 1, 2015. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 8) to modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st 

century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America’s energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability, and for other purposes. 

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. After general debate, the Committee of the Whole 

shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the bill 

shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the 

House. 
2 

•HRES 539 EH 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified 

in section 3 of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each such 

joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in each such joint resolution are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce; and (2) one motion to commit. 

SEC. 3. The joint resolutions referred to in section 2 of 

this resolution are as follows: 

(a) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating 

Units’’. 

(b) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Carbon Pollution Emission Guide-
3 

•HRES 539 EH 

lines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### R. L. Bracey and L. B. Varn, Plaintiffs in Error, *v.*First *712National Bank of Brooksville, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

A writ of Error to a Judgment of the Circuit Court within and for the County of Hernando.

Tom F. Hancock, for Plaintiffs in Error;

Francis B. Coogler, for Defendant in Error.

Writ of Error dismissed on motion of counsel for defendant in error at costs of plaintiffs in error.
#### AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co., Inc. v. Yucoco

20756

12/14/98

Vacated
#### W. R. Hughes, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary Hughes, Defendant in Error.

A Writ of Error to a Judgment of the Circuit Court within and for the County of Pinellas.

Lunsford & Shackleford, for Plaintiff in Error;

Herman Merrell, for Defendant in Error.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for defendant in error at costs of plaintiff in error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    273,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,709
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        186,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   320,662
<SALES>                                         86,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,409
<CGS>                                           72,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,813
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,896
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (598)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,298
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
P. 1



# OAR Box 1878 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 137) ll-B-5 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 11/28/20081:21:26

PM Sheet 137 of 145P. 2 

## A-90-1 9 ll-B-5 0 

## PENDIN GCONFIDENTIA L

« 

## E G g 

## t ) Vg SE P 1 199

2 EP AAI R DOCKE T Th e following informatio n i s locate d i n th e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina 27711 . Thi s informatio n i s confidentia l pending fina l determinatio n b yth e Administrato r an

d i s no t availabl e fo r publi c inspection . W . Floyd , Radian Corporation , t o Proces s Vent s Docke t A-90-19 , Decembe r 1990 , HO NNESHAP : Industr

y Characteristics/Ethylcellulose . 2 8 pages . CB I Documen t Contro l No . 86/23 , PPS-50 .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,995,000
<SECURITIES>                                   197,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,510,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   502,000
<INVENTORY>                                     33,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,697,000
<PP&E>                                       1,857,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 211,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,517,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,841,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,802,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,517,000
<SALES>                                      5,014,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,851,000
<CGS>                                        2,383,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,287,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,436,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,436,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,436,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,436,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019044EN.01007201.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/72

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T-347/18 R II)

((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - New application - No new facts - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (St. Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Engelbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and, secondly, the adoption of any other appropriate interim measure.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
***Exhibit 31.2 — CFO 302 Certification***
**Web.com, Inc.Certification for Annual Report onForm 10-K**
I, Gonzalo Troncoso, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K/A of Web.com, Inc.;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
Date: April 27, 2007/s/ Gonzalo Troncoso Gonzalo TroncosoExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
#### Doe, In Re: Jane (DOB 5/12/91)

18331,

18353

4/30/97

Affirmed
J

- S28017

- 18

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MATTHEW JOSEPH PETERS

,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1787 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, July 29, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 28

- CR

- 0000586

- 2014.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2018

Matthew Joseph Peters seeks to appeal

, nunc pro tunc

, a July 29, 2015

judgment of sentence . The Commonwealth agreed that Peters’ trial counsel

was ineffective for missing his original

, 3 0

- day window to appeal. However,

i n its 1925(a) Opinion , the PCRA court questioned

, sua sponte

, its jurisdiction

due to the PCRA ’s time bar

. After reinstating Peters’ direct appeal, t he learned

trial judge correctly realized that, b ecause Peters had not filed his PCRA action

until 56 days beyond the 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) deadline, t he PCRA court

lacked jurisdiction to reinstate his appellate rights, nunc pro tunc

.

Upon consideration of the 1925(a) Opinion

, it is

ORDERED that the November 9, 2017 No tice of Appeal is QUASHED

.J

- S28017

- 18

- 2

-

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/28/2018
# C_2018301EN.01001502.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others

(Case C-394/18)

(2018/C 301/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: I.G.I. Srl

Respondents: Maria Grazia Cicenia, Mario Di Pierro, Salvatore de Vito, Antonio Raffaele

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the creditors of the company being divided, whose credit interests antedate the division, who have not taken advantage of the remedy of lodging an objection under Article 2503 of the Civil Code (and therefore of the protection tool introduced in implementation of Article 12 of [Directive 82/891/EEC]), (1) use an action to set aside under Article 2901 of the Civil Code after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and, therefore, to take precedence in enforcement over the creditors of the recipient company or companies and to be placed in a preferential position before the shareholders of those companies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the creditors of the company being divided, whose credit interests antedate the division, who have not taken advantage of the remedy of lodging an objection under Article 2503 of the Civil Code (and therefore of the protection tool introduced in implementation of Article 12 of [Directive 82/891/EEC]), (1) use an action to set aside under Article 2901 of the Civil Code after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and, therefore, to take precedence in enforcement over the creditors of the recipient company or companies and to be placed in a preferential position before the shareholders of those companies?

| 2. | Does the notion of nullity, provided for by Article 19 of the directive, refer only to actions affecting the validity of the instrument of division or also to actions which, despite not affecting its validity, result in its relative lack of effect or unenforceability? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the notion of nullity, provided for by Article 19 of the directive, refer only to actions affecting the validity of the instrument of division or also to actions which, despite not affecting its validity, result in its relative lack of effect or unenforceability?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).

---