alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Shevach Saraf, Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of Solitron Devices, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB/A of Solitron Devices, Inc.;

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 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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report.


Date:  July 13, 2004                    /s/ Shevach Saraf
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Shevach Saraf
                                        Chairman, President,
                                        Chief Executive Officer,
                                        Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### New Focus Sportswear, Inc., Respondent, v P. J. Fabrico, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Honeywell, Inc., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on November 22, 1989, denying Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion is granted dismissing the complaint as to Honeywell, with costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Honeywell, Inc., severing and dismissing the complaint as to it, with costs.

On March 3, 1980, Honeywell contracted with Cromwell to install and monitor a sprinkler alarm system which was to notify the fire department of the alarm signal. A fire in the building damaged the goods which New Focus Sportswear had left for fabrication by the tenant Fabrico in the building managed by Cromwell.

The contract contains an exculpatory clause specifically providing that Honeywell was not undertaking to act as an insurer, assumed no liability for losses, and that Cromwell was to get insurance to cover liability for any losses which might occur out of the performance of the agreement. Liability that escaped the exculpatory clause was further limited to the annual service charge and there was an indemnification clause by which Cromwell indemnified Honeywell for any liability claims arising from the contract.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeals in *Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp.*(76 NY2d 220) is indistinguishable from this case. The Court of Appeals observed *176
      *(supra,*at 226) that the courts have a responsibility to fix the "orbit of duty” based on public policy to limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree and that might exclude recovery by some who might have recovered if traditional tort principles were applied. *Eaves Brooks,*in describing an orbit of duty of a sprinkler alarm company to exclude a tenant not in privity with the sprinkler alarm company, applies with even more force to exclude a customer of the tenant.

In the absence of any showing that New Focus was aware of Honeywell’s contractual relationship with Cromwell to monitor a sprinkler alarm system, and that New Focus relied to its detriment on the contractual relationship, there is no basis for the IAS court’s conclusion that there was an unresolved issue of fact as to whether Honeywell owed to New Focus a duty that was breached. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 20 12

- NM

- 102

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|Michigan Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|Michigan Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 10    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 8      | 3      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0025

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MARTIN ANDREW REINBOLT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 8, 2020, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 28 2020

05/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0025
Exhibit 32.1



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 BidGive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James P. Walker, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/  James P. Walker, Jr.

James P. Walker, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 16, 2004
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-544-000]

      ( print page 57596)    
Take notice that on September 15, 2000, Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company (CIPCO), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 7

Second Revised Sheet No. 126

Third Revised Sheet No. 127

CIPCO requests that the Commission approve the first tariff sheet identified above effective March 27, 2000, and approve the other two tariff sheets effective October 1, 2000, and requests a waiver of all Commission rules and regulations so as to implement such effective date.

CIPCO states that the filed tariff sheets are being filed to (a) eliminate the maximum rate ceilings for short-term capacity release transactions through September 30, 2002; and (b) to facilitate compliance with Order No. 637 and the revised reporting requirements in Section 161.3(1)(2) of the Commission's Regulations.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-24520  Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Nebraska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Nebraska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 1      | -1     | 0      | -2     | -1     | 1      | 3      | -1    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
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 PR Specialists, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence Ruden, President 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.



Dated: July 28, 2009



/s/ Lawrence Ruden

Lawrence Ruden, President

PR Specialists, Inc.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 19 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MILTON G. LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ROBERT HAZELWOOD, Correctional Counselor at D.O.C.; OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-7040 (D.C. No. 98-CV-231-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Milton G. Lee appeals from the district c ourt’s order dismissing his action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a s frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We dismiss the appeal. Lee, an inmate in the Oklahoma state prison system, was found guilty of five misconduct charges for violating prison rules. He was punished with disciplinary segregation, loss of earned and emerge ncy time credits, fines totaling $225.00, and reclassification from minimum to maxim um security status. In his complaint, Lee alleged the hearing procedure s violated his constitutional right to procedural due process because (1) he was found guilty without an adequate statement of reasons for the fi ndings, (2) he was deprived of liberty by the change of his security status and th e loss of his credits, and (3) he was deprived of his property because the fine was t aken from his institutional draw account. He also alleged he was denied his ad ministrative remedies because written dispositions were withheld from him thus pr eventing his appeal. The district court thoroughly discussed Lee’s claim s in its order dismissing this action. We find no reversible error in that o rder. Therefore, we DISMISS this appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( 2)(B) for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its order o f March 17, 1999. We consider the district court’s disposition as one “prior occa sion” and our dismissal of the frivolous appeal as a second “prior occasion” for p urposes of the three-strikes-3-

provision set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. Med. Facility , 175 F.3d 775, 780-81 (10th Cir. 1999). We remind Lee that he remains obligated to pay all installments of the deferred appellate filing fee until it is paid in full. No exception is made for dismissed appeals. See Jennings , 175 F.3d at 781; see, e.g. , 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett Senior Circuit Judge
#### BROWN et al. v. MINCEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 11, 1954.

Russell Jones, Fritz Krueger, Somerset, for appellants.

John Prather, Somerset, J. Milton Luker, London, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This case was practiced, tried and appealed under the Civil Code. The only ground for reversal asserted by appellants is alleged error in the instructions.

In appellants’ motion and grounds for a new trial they did not assert error in the instructions. The long settled rule under the Civil Code was that the failure of a party to challenge the instructions in his motion and grounds for a new trial constitutes a waiver of that objection and-the question cannot be raised in this Court for the first time. Jarboe v. Shane, Ky., 1953, 254 S.W.2d 695.

It may be noted that under the new Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure the principle stated above is no longer applicable to the question here presented. See CR 59.06.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ex parte Arthur W. CLAY.

No. 26798.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The appeal is from the order of the County Court denying application for writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the Sheriff of Winkler County.

Appellant has now filed properly executed affidavit requesting that this appeal be dismissed. The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99.1 - ANNUAL FUNDS APPLICATION STATEMENT




                              [LOGO] JPMORGAN


June 30, 2005

     Hartford Life Global Funding Trusts - Annual Funds Application Statement

I, Albert P. Mari, Jr., being a duly appointed officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture
Trustee, that, with respect to Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-031:





         1. I have reviewed and examined the application by the Indenture
Trustee, during the fiscal year ending June 15, 2005; of trust money collected
by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 of the Indenture, pursuant to
which the trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued; and

         2. Based upon my review and examination, to the best of my knowledge,
during such fiscal year, the trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee was
properly applied, pursuant to Section 5.02 of the Indenture.

         Nothing herein shall constitute a representation as to the proper
application by the registered holder of the Notes or the trust of the trust
monies received by it.



JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Indenture Trustee
Worldwide Securities Services
4 New York Plaza, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004


/s/ Albert P. Mari, Jr.


Name:  Albert P. Mari, Jr.
Title: Vice President


<TABLE>
<S><C>
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK o Institutional Trust Services o 4 New York Plaza, Floor 15, New York, NY 10004
</TABLE>