alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Gerald T. Mulligan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of LSB Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and,  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and,5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors and theAudit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; 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 12, 2006                                                             /s/ Gerald T. Mulligan   Gerald T. Mulligan   President andChief Executive Officer  
22
----

----

**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**

| (1)                    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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 represents, in all                  material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                  of the                  Registrant. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                  John                  daCosta   |   |   |   |   |
| Name:                  John                  daCosta |   |   |   |   |
| Title:Chief                  Executive Officer       |   |   |   |   |
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2


                         LSB CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

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 LSB Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John E. Sharland,
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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of
         September 30, 2004 and results of operations of the Company for the
         three months and nine months ended September 30, 2004.




                                                /s/ John E. Sharland
                                                --------------------------------
                                                John E. Sharland
                                                Senior Vice President
                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                                November 12, 2004



                                       28
Exhibit 99.1



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

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 Accenture SCA (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joe W. Forehand, Chief Executive Officer
of Accenture Ltd, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 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/    JOE W. FOREHANDJoe W. Forehand Chief Executive Officer Dated: July 15, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER WORLINE,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

 v.

J. F. SALAZAR,

 Respondent - Appellant.

No. 09-56740

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01922-CJCAJW

MEMORANDUM*

CHRISTOPHER WORLINE,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

 v.

J. F. SALAZAR,

 Respondent - Appellant.

No. 09-56741

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03845-CJCAJW

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

AUG 17 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Submitted March 9, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Warden J.F. Salazar appeals the district court’s grant of Christopher

Worline’s petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Worline argued that there was not

“some evidence” supporting the California Board of Parole Hearings’s 2004 and

2005 decisions denying him parole. In light of Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859

(2011) (per curiam), we hold that Worline’s federal right to due process

was not violated. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of his habeas

petitions. We understand that the state will now grant Worline an out-of-custody

parole hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/31 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-12723) and the related Prospectus of
UROHEALTH Systems, Inc. for the registration of 5,750,000 shares of its common
stock and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated August
8, 1996, except Note K, as to which the date is August 14, 1996, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Richard-Allan Medical Industries, Inc.
included in its Form 8-K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 26, 1996.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Kalamazoo, Michigan
   
November 6, 1996
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Rodney Hunt-Fontaine, Inc. 

Under Contract No. W91237-14-C-0006 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 59943 

Erin L. Toomey, Esq. 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

Detroit, MI 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Willie J. Williams, Esq. 

Bradley J. Stark, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 11 May 2016 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59943, Appeal of Rodney Hunt-Fontaine, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
EXHIBIT 12



FIRST REPUBLIC PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION

(A Majority Owned Subsidiary of First Republic Bank)



STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                                  |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | ----- | ------------------------------- | - | ----- |  | ---- | ------ |  | - | -----
|                                                  |  | Three Months Ended September 30, |       | Nine Months Ended September 30,
|(Dollars in thousands)                            |  | 2004                             |       | 2003                            |   | 2004  |  | 2003
|I.        Earnings:                               |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      
|Net income                                        |  | $                                | 3,965 |                                 | $ | 4,135 |  | $    | 11,923 |  | $ | 9,614
|Fixed charges excluding preferred stock dividends |  |                                  |      |                                 |   |      |  |      |       |  |   |     
|                                                  |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      
|Earnings before fixed charges                     |  | $                                | 3,965 |                                 | $ | 4,135 |  | $    | 11,923 |  | $ | 9,614
|                                                  |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      
|II.      Fixed charges:                           |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      
|Preferred stock dividends                         |  | $                                | 3,563 |                                 | $ | 3,563 |  | $    | 10,689 |  | $ | 8,562
|                                                  |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      
|III.     Ratios of earnings to fixed charges      |  |                                  | 1.11x |                                 |   | 1.16x |  |      | 1.12x  |  |   | 1.12x
|                                                  |  |                                  |       |                                 |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |      



20
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 5918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Initial Review Group; Diabetes, Endocrinology 
and Metabolic Diseases B Study Section Diabetes, Endocrinology and 
Metabolic Diseases B Study Section (DDK-B).
    Date: March 6-8, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK Democracy II, Suite 
7000A 6707 Democracy Boulevard Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting)
    Contact Person: Charlene J. Repique, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7347, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-7791, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac9c2cbd8c6cfc4cf84d8cfdac3dbdfcfeac4c3c284cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8eede6effce2ebe0eba0fcebfee7fffbebcee0e7e6a0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01822 Filed 1-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1325 

CA 13-00358 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

PAUL FOTI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GINA FOTI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

JOAN de R. O’BYRNE, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL STEINBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

KAMAN, BERLOVE, MARAFIOTI, JACOBSTEIN & GOLDMAN LLP, ROCHESTER

(MICHAEL PAUL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth

R. Fisher, J.), entered April 4, 2012 in a divorce action. The order

granted the motion of defendant for partial summary judgment

determining that various real estate entities and management companies

were her separate property. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant’s motion

is denied. 

Memorandum: In this divorce action, defendant moved for partial

summary judgment determining that various real estate entities and

management companies (hereafter, entities) were her separate property. 

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the

motion. Although defendant established that her father gifted the

entities to her as separate property (see generally Allen v Allen, 263

AD2d 691, 692), there is an issue of fact whether defendant thereafter

commingled her interests in the entities with marital property (see

generally Richter v Richter, 77 AD3d 1470, 1471; Haas v Haas, 265 AD2d

887, 888). Here, the parties filed a joint federal tax return in

which defendant reported her interest in the entities as tax losses,

and “[a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a

position taken in an income tax return” (Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman,

12 NY3d 415, 422). 

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Petition for exemption/rulemaking

I am the airport board chairman for DuPont-Lapeer Airport (D95) owned by

Mayfield Township, Lapeer County, Michigan. I am requesting to operate 

an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for the research and development for

wildlife management on airports and aerial inspection of airport property 

and structures. This would include having a handheld comm radio to 

monitor ground and air movement of aircraft so the UAS would be recalled 

to limit any conflict with aircraft. The UAS would be limited to only 50’

above the tallest airport structure or less than 400’.

I would also like to conduct training of persons individually or belonging to 

both private and or public organizations that have interest in the use and 

application of a UAS. The purpose of this training is for safe operation of a 

UAS and to enhance the safety of the national airspace system (NAS) as 

well as for the protection of persons and property. This training would 

include aerial inspection of residential and/or commercial structures under 

contract with the owners or local government authority, aerial photography 

and/or video for public and/or private use including real estate, architecture, 

land surveying, engineering and other related professional activities, aerial

video/photography or providing live video feed to assist with search and 

rescue operations in cases of an emergency or natural disaster when the 

local authorities or government have requested it.
1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1742

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Gregory Stanek, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 23, 2010 Filed: October 6, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Stanek challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to (1) conspiring to distribut e and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containi ng methamphetamine and 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(v iii) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; (2) using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug traffi cking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A); and (3) fo rfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2461-2- and 5872. His counsel has moved to withdr aw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Having reviewed the district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion as required under United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Sicaros-Quintero , 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness to sentence at bottom of Guidelines range); United States v. Watson , 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing abuse of discretion). Further, we have reviewed th e record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel in forming appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________
NO. 07-11-0239-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JULY 13, 2010  

In the Interest of S.M., a Child 

___________________________

FROM THE 72nd DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-542,245; HONORABLE RUBEN REYES, PRESIDING

***Order of Dismissal***

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

1

Appellant Cesar Mendez filed a notice of appeal on June 15, 2011.  However, appellant did not pay the $175 filing fee required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.  Nor did he file with us an affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.  By letter from this Court dated June 21, 2011, we informed appellant that the filing fee had not been paid and that the failure to cure the default within ten days may result in a dismissal of his appeal.  TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); *see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises*, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. refd).  The fee was not so paid.  Nor did appellant tender an affidavit of indigence within that time.  Indeed, the absence of such an affidavit was noted by the trial court via an order dated July 1, 2011, wherein it discharged appellant’s appointed counsel from further representing appellant.  The trial court also disclosed in the order that appellant had not claimed to be indigent. 

Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fees as directed by the court, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). 

Per Curiam

2
EXHIBIT 32.1 – SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant
 to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 
 
 I, Antonio Treminio, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Principal Accounting Officer of NOVO ENERGIES CORPORATION. (the “Company”), certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: October 5, 2009
 /s/ Antonio Treminio
 Antonio Treminio
 Chief Executive Officer,
 Acting Principal Accounting Officer