alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Carl H. Guild, Jr., certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TechnicalCommunications Corporation;  (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  (4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and (5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.        /s/ Carl H. Guild, Jr.  Carl H. Guild, Jr.  President and Chief Executive Officer
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 St. Joseph, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John H. Simmons, as
President and Principal Executive 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 (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:  April 15, 2005                  /s/ John H. Simmons
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John H. Simmons
                                       President and Principal Executive Officer
Notice of Appearance of Counsel 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. 

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00571-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00572-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00573-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00574-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00575-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00576-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00577-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00578-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00579-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00580-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00581-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00582-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00583-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00584-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00585-ADA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that Mark D. Siegmund of Walt Fair, PLLC, 1508 North 

Valley Mills, Texas 76710 makes a formal entry of appearance in the above-styled and numbered 

causes as counsel for Plaintiff, WSOU Investments, LLC. The undersigned counsel requests a copy 

of all pleadings, discovery, correspondence and orders be sent to him. 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 22 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Notice of Appearance of Counsel Page | 2

DATED: September 15, 2020 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 September 2020.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 22 Filed 09/15/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1000
       
<S>                                                <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                    63533
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             56890
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                               49398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         174081
<PP&E>                                                    95020
<DEPRECIATION>                                            42786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           248166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     77592
<BONDS>                                                   33935
<COMMON>                                                   2012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                               127010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             248166
<SALES>                                                  196134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         196134
<CGS>                                                    133573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            133573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           22605
<INCOME-TAX>                                               8152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       14453
<DISCONTINUED>                                            11760
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                              26213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              1.62
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Alan C. Schickler, Appellant.

County Court, Monroe County,

November 20, 1957.

*Hubert J. Gillette*for appellant.

*Harry L. Rosenthal, District Attorney (John J. Conway, Jr.,*of counsel), for respondent.

Maurice W. McCann, J.

(Yates County Judge and Acting Judge for Monroe County). The defendant-appellant was convicted after a trial in Justice’s Court, Town of Parma, Monroe County, on March 1, 1957, of violating subdivision 4 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. A fine of $15 was imposed. It is from this conviction that the defendant has taken this appeal, alleging certain errors. He contends, among other things, that there was a failure on the part of the People to prove legally the speed of the vehicle operated by the accused person.

*1025The People’s only witness, Deputy Sheriff Clark, testified that he “ clocked ” the defendant at 70 miles per hour in a 35-mile per hour zonej that he had his speedometer checked a short time *after*the date of the violation and learned that it was off *2*miles per hour. The defendant denied that he was operating his car at this speed and testified in his own behalf that he was driving 35 miles per hour, as did two of his passengers.

There was no other offer or proof of the violation than the testimony of the deputy *“*clocking” the speed, as he put it. The People’s proof rested solely on the speedometer reading.

The Court of Appeals in the case of *People*v. *Heyser*(2 N Y 2d 390, 393) said: “ evidence of the reading of an untested speedometer without more would be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” In the instant case there is no other proof of speed.

In the trial of a charge of speeding the most essential element of proof is that of speed. Without such evidence there is a failure by the People to sustain the burden of proof and as a result there can be no conviction. Such is the situation in this case.

For such reason the judgment of conviction is reversed, the fine remitted, and the information dismissed.

The foregoing is sufficient for the purpose of this appeal, thereby making unnecessary a ruling upon the other contentions 'of the defendant-appellant.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5712 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5712

  To authorize the Secretary of Labor to establish a pilot program to 
  have community business leaders mentor members of the Armed Forces 
    under the Transition Assistance Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2012

Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, and Mr. Reichert) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of Labor to establish a pilot program to 
  have community business leaders mentor members of the Armed Forces 
    under the Transition Assistance Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Jobs Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. BUSINESS LEADER MENTOR PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Pilot Program.--In carrying out the Transition Assistance 
Program (including the Disabled Transition Assistance Program) under 
section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Labor, 
in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs, may establish a pilot program to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of using community business leaders as 
mentors to facilitate the transition of members of the Armed Forces who 
are being separated from active duty and the spouses of such members.
    (b) Duration.--If the Secretary carries out the pilot program 
established under subsection (a), such program shall be carried out for 
a two-year period.
    (c) Report.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date on 
        which the Secretary commences the pilot program established 
        under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the 
        appropriate congressional committees a report on such program, 
        including the findings of the Secretary with respect to the 
        feasibility and advisability of using business leaders as 
        mentors as described in subsection (a).
            (2) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
        means--
                    (A) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Armed 
                Services of the House of Representatives; and
                    (B) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Armed 
                Services of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Lingo Media Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Michael P. Kraft, President and Chief Executive 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, based on my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



Date: July 14, 2005



Lingo Media Inc.



By:

/s/  Michael P. Kraft

_____________________



Michael P. Kraft

President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.6



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 YM BioSciences Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David G.P. Allan, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By: | /s/ Dr. Nicholas Glover             | 
|--- | ----------------------------------- | 
|    | Dr. Nicholas Glover                 | 
|    | President & Chief Executive Officer | 



September 21, 2012
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 54 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to extend liability to corporations, 

partnerships, and other persons having ownership interests in responsible 

parties, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia (for himself and Mr. TONKO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to extend liability 

to corporations, partnerships, and other persons having 

ownership interests in responsible parties, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stand by your Oil Pol5 lution Act’’ (or the ‘‘STOP Act’’). 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 54 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY. 

2 Section 1001(32) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

3 (33 U.S.C. 2701(32)) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(G) PERSON HAVING OWNERSHIP INTER6 EST.—Any corporation, partnership, or other 

7 person (other than an individual) having an 

8 ownership interest (directly or indirectly), in 

9 any person (including a lessee, permittee, or li10 censee) described in any of subparagraphs (A) 

11 through (F) if such ownership interest is, in the 

12 aggregate, more than 25 percent of the total 

13 ownership interests in such person.’’. 

14 SEC. 3. LIMITS ON LIABILITY. 

15 Section 1004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

16 U.S.C. 2704) is amended by adding at the end the fol17 lowing: 

18 ‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CERTAIN PER19 SONS.—The liability of a responsible party described in 

20 section 1001(32)(G) with respect to an incident shall not 

21 exceed the percentage of the aggregate ownership inter22 ests, determined at the time of such incident, of such re23 sponsible party in all other responsible parties with respect 

24 to such incident.’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 54 IH

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to an 

3 incident occurring on or after January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of North State Bancorp

(as of March 20, 2006)



|                               |  |                       
|------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary                     |  | State of Incorporation
|North State Bank               |  | North Carolina        
|North State Statutory Trust I  |  | Connecticut           
|North State Statutory Trust II |  | Delaware              
|                               |  |                       

Subsidiaries of North State Bank

(as of March 20, 2006)



|                                          |  |                       
|----------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary                                |  | State of Incorporation
|North State Bank Financial Services, Inc. |  | North Carolina
Exhibit 32

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 Frederick’s of Hollywood Group Inc. (formerly Movie Star, Inc.) (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), each of 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:

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 operation of the Company.

Date: February 14, 2008





/s/ Peter ColePeter Cole
Principal Executive OfficerDate: February 14, 2008





/s/ Thomas RendeThomas Rende
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer


---
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

e9?>£23Tll-E-183 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM Sheet 223 of 264 
p__ 

AUG-20-98THU 14:25 GHM,INC. 1 T1 T 36 6 1T0 6 P. 02 

A 94 52 

Contact Report ° 

From: Shawn McKee, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

Date: August 20,1998 

Contact: Mr. Glenn Miller 

Company: GHM, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (717) 366-3967 

Fax Number: (717) 366-1706 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Glenn Miller was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to gain information about 

potential indirect costs associated with changmg to non-atomized production equipment, and the 

usage of vapor suppressants. In response to my questions Mr. Miller indicated the following: 

GHM, Inc. is currently using flow coaters in their production process. The cost of switching 

to this equipment was between $500 and $600 per machine, including equipment, and the short 

training and adjustment period necessary for the operators. These costs were incurred for around 

5 machines. After the operators had adjusted to using the new equipment, they found tiiat the 

improved air quality from the reduction in slyrene emissions significantly improved the working 

environment. [Mr. Miller, could you please indicate whether or not you saw a change in the 

amount of resin being used after switching to the flow coaters?] 

"ftfEiUi U A $U6trT ItfdkMiE IN 77/_ </5£ OP kn.tH tJiTf/ 

Mec.iE, Si»c* £Ac» /Wc>- ue. /"**•/* ^'-^vr T**fr#* 

r

tMsrfl/te£ ir is tofifiKvw ro Gwrifiy ffao wut MOM H-*'^ 

Before switching to flow coaters, GHM, Inc. had tried to use pressure-fed rollers, however, 

the operators found using pressure-fed rollers took much longer, and required cleaning every lime 

production was stopped. The increase in production time made the use of pressure-fed rollers 

impractical for GHM, Inc. No equipment costs were incurred because the equipment was on loan 

from the supplier. 

GHM, Inc. also currently adds a vapor suppressant to their resins at a cost of $0.02 to $0.03 

per pound, or $10 to $15 per drum.. The suppressant does not take a significant amount of time to 

add, nor does it cause any production problems, /-pfc OyfL ^^A./i7?^/M- ,-

)

^

£

- ^ ' 

\T QiovLC rior &a A&UH-b r/w is r//£ <M$£ Pok ortf-ck 

FMktcATokSi . 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE ^/fj&^Jf. WC_l%_ /4*J_£/" 

I
#### Houston Ray ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27351.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, 99 years.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form executed by appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.