alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Stephen K. Gartside, Jr., certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Evolving Systems, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols 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 disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,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 registrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 15, 2007
| /s/ Stephen K. Gartside, Jr. |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Stephen K.  Gartside, Jr.    |   |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer     |   |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CLIFFORD COLE, PAMELA WEST, BRIAN 

WEIRBACK, KATHY WEIRBACK, TODD 

SHELLY AND CHRISTINE SHELLY

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PETITION OF: ADELPHIA GATEWAY, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 415 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

WEST ROCKHILL TOWNSHIP

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION

PETITION OF: ADELPHIA GATEWAY, 

LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 416 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2023, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are 

GRANTED. The issues as stated by Petitioner are:

(1) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled five times that it 

has “original and exclusive” jurisdiction over the review of the Department’s 

issuance of permits in connection with interstate natural gas pipeline 
[415 MAL 2021] - 2

projects regulated under the federal Natural Gas Act. Did the 

Commonwealth Court err on an important question of first impression in 

holding that the EHB has dual jurisdiction over such appeals, contrary to the 

plain language of the Natural Gas Act?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court depart from accepted judicial practices and 

abuse its discretion in determining that the federal Natural Gas Act does not 

preempt the EHB from reviewing the Department’s permits, given the 

contrary holdings of other courts, and given that those permits are issued 

pursuant to, and required by, federal law governing interstate natural gas 

pipeline projects?

(3) Did the Commonwealth Court depart from accepted judicial practices and 

abuse its discretion in adopting a dual-jurisdiction approach that is contrary 

to the plain language of the federal Natural Gas Act’s judicial review 

provision, undermines Congress’s clear legislative purpose, is without

precedent in this or any other jurisdiction, and creates an unworkable 

framework that will produce uncertainty, inconsistency, and conflict among 

state and federal courts?

The Prothonotary is directed to list these cases for argument together with the 

appeals granted at 312-313 EAL 2021.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Sun Trust Mortgage, Inc.                      RALPH B. CARRIGAN
Mail Code CC-502                              President, Chief Operating Officer
P.O. Box 4333
Atlanta, GA 30302
Tel (770)352-5610
Fax (770) 352-5832

SUNTRUST

January 30, 1998

Arthur Andersen LLP
133 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Sirs:

As of and for the year ended  December 31,  1997,  SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc. has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  UNIFORM  SINGLE  ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for this same period, SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc.  had in effect a  fidelity  bond and  errors  and  omissions  policy in the
amounts of $100,000,000 and $20,000,000 respectively.

Sincerely,
/s/Ralph B. Carrigan
Ralph B. Carrigan
President/COO

RBC/amg
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20847 Summary Calendar

FRANK E. LITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HOUSTON CITY JAIL et al., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-1073

- - - - - - - - - - April 5, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, anD WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Frank E. Little moves this court for permission to file his appellate brief out-of-time. The motion is GRANTED. Little has also filed motions to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of appellate counsel. The appellees ask the court to strike Little’s appellate brief, to reconsider an order reinstating this appeal, and to dismiss the appeal. “If upon the hearing of any interlocutory motion . . . it shall appear to the Court that the appeal is frivolous andNo. 97-20847 -2- entirely without merit, the appeal will be dismissed.” 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Our review of Little’s appellate brief convinces us that his appeal should be dismissed because it lacks arguable legal merit.Little’s arguments concerning the dismissal of certain out-ofstate defendants are frivolous, as are his arguments concerning the magistrate judge’s handling of a status conference. Little does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the remaining defendants based on Little’s refusal to comply with an order to amend his pleadings to plead his case with greater specificity. Accordingly, Little’s motions to proceed IFP on appeal and for appointment of counsel are DENIED, the appellees’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The appellees’ motions to strike Little’s brief and for reconsideration of the reinstatement of the appeal are DENIED AS MOOT. We caution Little that any additional appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Little should review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
MOTION TO FILE BRIEF OUT-OF-TIME GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR IFP
AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS TO STRIKE BRIEF AND FOR
RECONSIDERATION DENIED AS MOOT.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the quarterly report of Tecumseh Products Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,
James S. Nicholson, 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, to my knowledge:

     (3)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

     (4)  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: November 14, 2007                BY: /s/ JAMES S. NICHOLSON
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            James S. Nicholson
                                            Vice President, Treasurer and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                FEB-28-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                                     AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                                               272,780 
<SECURITIES>                                                               0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      2,489,637 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       1,146,000 
<INVENTORY>                                                          139,040 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   2,252,279 
<PP&E>                                                               962,092 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       385,279 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     3,424,336 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              3,436,716 
<BONDS>                                                              200,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0 
<PREFERRED>                                                                1 
<COMMON>                                                             118,133 
<OTHER-SE>                                                         (330,514)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       3,424,336 
<SALES>                                                            1,882,079 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   1,882,079 
<CGS>                                                                409,228 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        409,228 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    81,694 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (1,714,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (1,714,244)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0 
<CHANGES>                                                                  0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (1,714,244)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    $     (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    $     (.20)
                                                                             

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30798 Summary Calendar

HERSY JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v. LOUISIANA STATE SUPREME COURT; LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD; ROBERT S. KENNEDY, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Disciplinary Counsel; CHARLES B. PLATTSMIER, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Co unsel,

Defendants

– Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana No. 5:15

- CV

- 2766

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff

- Appellant Hersy Jones, Jr. appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker

- Feldman
doctrine. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex. , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994)

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30798 Document: 00514686372 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2018No. 17

- 30798

2 (“ [ T he Rooker

- Feldman ] doctrine directs that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments.”). We find
no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that the Rook er
- Feldman doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction to hear Jones’s claims

. Even if some of Jones’s claims can somehow be characterized as a general, facial challenge to the constitutionality of the disciplinary scheme, he
should have raised those issues dur ing the state court proceeding. See Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex. , 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[F]ederal jurisdiction does not lie for claims that were not presented first to the state court in the disciplinary proceeding.”). Accordingly, we A FFIRM. 1

1 We also determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal. See Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco , 664 F.3d 71, 80 (5th Cir. 2011) (“We review a denial of a motion to recuse for abuse of discretion.”). Case: 17-30798 Document: 00514686372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2018
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 Circle  Group  Holdings,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the annual  period ended  December 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Gregory J.  Halpern,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/S/  GREGORY J. HALPERN
------------------------
Gregory J. Halpern
Chief Executive Officer
October 25, 2006
## 4ar

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767 TDD 401-222-4462

25 March 2015 David Conroy U.S. EPA — Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OEP05-02) Boston, MA 02109-3912
Re: Technical Revisions to Six Air Pollution Control Regulations Dear Mr. Conroy: On February 12, 2015 the Department of Environmental Management's Office of Air Resources filed technical revisions to seven of its Air Pollution Control Regulations. Five of these regulations are currently pending as SIP revisions, one regulation is federally enforceable, but not in the SIP and one regulation is not currently in the SIP. We are providing you six of these regulations to replace the current versions you have on file. Attached is a document that explains the changes that were made to each regulation and their current SIP status. Technical revisions are changes to a regulation that do not change the substance of the regulation in any way. Example revisions are typos, mislabeled sections, incorrect references, etc. If you have any questions on this issue, please contact me at (401) 222-2808, x-7011. Sincerely,

Douglas L. McVay, ef Office of Air Resources

cc: Anne Arnold, EPA Ida McDonnell, EPA

it io l 30% post-consumer fiber
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, Roger K. Brooks, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of AmerUs Group Co. (the Company), hereby certifies that:  (i)
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Commission Act of 1934; and(ii)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Roger K. BrooksRoger K. BrooksChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAmerUs Group Co.
 Dated: March 7, 2005
#### Albert J. BURRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zolon A. WILKINS, Sr., d/b/a Lexington Apartments and Motor Inn, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-3212

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1977.

Thomas H. Dixon, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Weldon Parkhill, Grand Prairie, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409. Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is an action under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, brought by Albert Burris, a black American, against the operator of an apartment and motel complex. Mr. Burris alleged that the defendant’s agent refused to rent him an apartment because of his race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1982. After presentation of all of the evidence at a trial without jury, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proving that the refusal to rent him an apartment was due “solely because he was black”1, and entered judgment for the defendant.

The plaintiff charges the trial court erred in enunciating an erroneous burden of proof. We agree and reverse, remanding to the trial court for application of the proper standard.

In *United States v. Pelzer Realty Company, Inc.,*484 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1973), *cert. denied,*416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1935, 40 L.Ed.2d 286 (1974), we reversed a dismissal of a complaint and found a violation of the Fair Housing Act, stating:

> We need not and do not find that racial prejudice dominated [the mind of defendant’s agent] during the negotiations. It is enough that race was one significant factor he considered in his dealings with the men.

484 F.2d at 443.

The burden of proof on the plaintiff in an action under the Fair Housing Act alleging race discrimination is, therefore, not that the refusal to rent was due solely because he was black, but that race was a significant factor. As the district judge in the proceedings below was the trier of fact, we remand to him for reconsideration based on the proper standard enunciated above.

Nothing herein should be taken as an indication that this Court is ruling on the merits. Our concern here is that the facts *892be determined in accordance with the controlling principle of law.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. Memorandum Opinion. Appendix at 26-29.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06931

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06931\06931_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06931\06931_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06931\06931_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06931\06931_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06931\06931_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06931\06931_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06931\06931_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06931\06931_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

06931\Certification Statement_06931.pdf Plant certification statement

06931\Supporting Documentation\06931_PPLCorette_CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06931\Supporting Documentation\06931_PPLCorette_EA_PIC_Sept_26_2006.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06931\Supporting Documentation\06931_PPLCorette_MAP-091010_Final.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06931\Supporting Documentation\06931_PPLCorette_POND-1_091010_Final.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06931\Supporting Documentation\06931_PPLCorette_WB-1_091010_Final.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 32.2


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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  December 29, 2006 as filed  with the Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Kathleen Skero,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: March 23, 2007
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.