alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.3 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)
 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
 
 I, Nadav Kidron, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and
 
 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.
 
 Date: December 21, 2012
/s/ Nadav KidronNadav KidronPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Rochelle Thomas, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Denise Thomas, an Infant, Respondent, *v.*Gimbel Bros., Inc., Defendant-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. All-Stone Industries, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 31, 1957.

*John Nielsen*and *John P. Smith*for appellant.

*J. Stanley Qohen*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court erred in excluding evidence in the infant’s case as to the performance of the work by an independent contractor and in charging the jury that if the work had been done by an independent contractor, such fact would not relieve Gimbel Bros, of their responsibility. Even if it be assumed that the work was inherently dangerous, nevertheless, the employer of a contractor is not liable for the mere collateral acts of negligence of the latter’s servants. The casual act of a contractor’s servant in throwing a piece of material onto the ground in the vicinity of the work was but an incidental detail of the work for which the contractor’s employer did not assume liability as an inherent and foreseeable danger. *202
      *(Hyman*v. *Barrett,*224 N. Y. 436; *Fragiacomo*v. *404-6 East 88th St. Realty Corp.,*269 App. Div. 635, 637.)

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hofstadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
#### Ex parte BROWN.

No. 24895.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator was twice indicted for the offense of robbery with firearms, and in this proceeding sought to obtain allowance of bail.

Bail being refused, Relator gave notice of appeal to this court.

It now appears that since such notice of appeal, Relator has been tried and found guilty of one of the offenses charged against him, and his punishment has been assessed by the jury at 20 years in the penitentiary.

Relator not being entitled to- bail by reason of such conviction the question raised in this proceeding is moot.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0584 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL JACOB DUNNE,

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 August 3 1, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening br ief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 21 2022

07/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0584
#### James Burl SLAUGHTER v. STATE.

No. 26556.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1953.

Roberson, -Finley & Duncan, Kermit, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Since perfecting his appeal the appellant has filed a written motion duly verified requesting the dismissal thereof. The motion is granted and the appeal is therefore ordered dismissed.
AFS-12-035-E 

November 21, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10391 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1156 

Mr. Emmanuel Aponte 

213 Cecil Avenue 

Spring Lake, NC 28390-2522 

Dear Mr. Aponte: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an exemption from § 61.153(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the 

extent necessary to apply for an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate in order to complete 

his training and eventually act as a required aircrew member with a part 121 carrier. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 6826 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that the petitioner failed to show how his situation was unique in comparison to the 

needs of other pilots and that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. The 

FAA noted that his personal interest to be able to apply for an ATP certificate before reaching 

his 23rd birthday is not the same as the interest of the public as a whole. Additionally, the 

FAA determined that compliance with this rule would ensure a high maturity level for those 

pilots who are permitted to operate as pilot in command in operations requiring an ATP 

certificate and that the minimum age requirement of 23 years would further the cause of 

safety. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6826 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.153(a). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
EPA Reg. No. 74712-1
ATTACHMENT 8 Summary of Incident History (Referenced in August 2001 Responseto Question 11)

The following databaseswere searchedfor accident history on Paraquat: Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials lncident Reporting 

### System (HMIRS) 

### EPA's Emergency Response Notification

### System (ERNS) U.S. Coast Guard, National 

### Response Center's Incident Reporting Information System (IRIS) EPA's Acute Hazardous Events (AHE) Database 

### EPA's Accident Release Information Program (ARIP) OSHA's Integrated Management Information 

### System (IMIS)

While covering different

### time periods, collectively the databases 

### reviewedcontained data from over twenty years, 1980 to May 2001. The objective of the search was to identify nontransportation-related releases at fixed facilitiesthat had potentialfor off-site consequences. Seven 

### such incidentswere found in 

### the database. 

### One of these incidents involved 

### a number of chemicals, including Paraquat,which were released into 

### sewers from plant tanks. Another involved

### a fertilizer plant at which cleaning tanks 

### were flushed out resulting in runoff across 

### a road. Of the five other incidents identified,three were at facilitieswere fires 

### occurred but herewere 

### no evacuations, injures or death reported. One incident involved an explosion at a chemical facility where various pesticideswere stored which resulted in an evacuation but no injuries. And one 

### was reportedat facility at which 

### a fire occurredwhere there was an evacuation but no reported injuries

### or deaths.
Exhibit 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Joel Williams, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Monarch Staffing,
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
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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I am responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:


(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 24, 2006        /s/ Joel Williams
                              ---------------------------------------
                                  Joel Williams
                                  Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report datedMarch 12, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Center Financial Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference ofsaid report in the Registration Statements of Center Financial Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-135594, effective July 5, 2006), Form S-3 (File No. 333-165068, effective April 8, 2010), Form S-3 (File No. 333-165-665,effective April 8, 2010), and Form S-3 (File No. 333-165071, effective April 8, 2010) 

 

/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

March 3, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Mountain National Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Dwight B. Grizzell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do
hereby 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 and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: March 31, 2006                  /s/ Dwight B. Grizzell
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Dwight B. Grizzell, Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

y0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

144005-6 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144005-6 

 COA: 298709; 298710 

FORTINO GONZALEZ, Allegan CC: 09-016480-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 09-016481-FC 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 13



                                  CERTIFICATION


           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Viatel Holding (Bermuda)
Limited (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacity set forth below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her
knowledge:

(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/ Lucy Woods
------------------------------
Name: Lucy Woods
Title: Chief Executive Officer

/S/ Stephen Grist
------------------------------
Name: Stephen Grist
Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: 22 March 2004



A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting each of the signatures appearing in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and the related rules and regulations.

This written statement accompanies the Annual Report on Form 20-F in which it
appears as an Exhibit pursuant to Section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 or other applicable law, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Page | 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,

LTD. and HUAWEI 

TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00533-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00534-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00535-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00536-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00537-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00538-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00539-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00540-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00541-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00542-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00543-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00544-ADA

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING 

DISCLOSURE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Version 3.2 of the Court’s Order Governing proceedings entered 

November 9, 2020, and in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff hereby notifies 

the Court Plaintiff has disclosed the extrinsic evidence it intends to rely upon concerning claim 

construction on Defendants Huawei Technologies Co., LTD and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. 

via electronic mail on January 15, 2021.

Case 6:20-cv-00544-ADA Document 42 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 2
Page | 2

DATED: January 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_____ 

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this the 15th day of January 2021.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00544-ADA Document 42 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5701 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cotton yarn of combed fibers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2012 

Mr. PAULSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cotton yarn 

of combed fibers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN COTTON YARN OF COMBED FIBERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5701 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Cotton yarn (other than 

sewing thread), containing 

85 percent or more by 

weight of cotton, not put 

up for retail sale, consisting of multiple (folded) 

or cabled yarn, of combed 

fibers gassed and 

mercerized, exceeding 

14nm but not exceeding 

43nm per single yarn (provided for in subheading 

5205.42.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1264** 

CARL E. MCADOO, as Executor of the Estate of Charles Raford McAdoo, Sr. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SONNY W. TUCKER, JR., Dr.; SANDY F. PIERCE, PA; RUTHERFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; JOHN CARROLL; VIC MARTIN; ANN PADGETT; JOYCE ANN NASH, all individuals sued in official and personal capacity, all defendants sued jointly and severally , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00328

- MR

- DLH )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Carl E. McAdoo, Appellant Pro Se. Allison C. Carroll, Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; John E. Roge r s, II, WARD LAW FIRM, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for2 Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIA M: Carl E. McAdoo seeks to appeal the district court ’s order dismissing without prejudice his action seeking to prosecute the claims of a decedent’s estate

. The district court dismissed for failure to obtain counsel as directed by the magistrate judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order McAdoo seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as McAdoo may be able to save his action by obtaining counsel

. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISS ED