alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of SBM Certificate Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Eric M. Westbury
-------------------------------------
    Eric M. Westbury
    President

Date: April 18, 2003
# Jornal Oficial C 42A/9 de

| | ISSN 1977-1010 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 42A |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 60.° ano9 de fevereiro de 2017 |

ISSN 1977-1010

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 42A

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

60.° ano9 de fevereiro de 2017

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avisos |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Eurojust |
| 2017/C 42 A/01 | Notificação de aviso de abertura da vaga de Diretor Administrativo (grau AD 14) da Eurojust — Haia (Países Baixos) — 17/EJ/01 | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Eurojust

2017/C 42 A/01

Notificação de aviso de abertura da vaga de Diretor Administrativo (grau AD 14) da Eurojust — Haia (Países Baixos) — 17/EJ/01

1

---

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Eurojust

| 9.2.2017 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 42/1

---

Notificação de aviso de abertura da vaga de Diretor Administrativo (grau AD 14) da Eurojust — Haia (Países Baixos) — 17/EJ/01

(2017/C 042 A/01)

A Eurojust convida à apresentação de candidaturas para o cargo de Diretor Administrativo desta organização. A Eurojust foi criada em 2002 para reforçar a eficácia das autoridades competentes dos Estados-Membros na luta contra a criminalidade grave transnacional e organizada. A Eurojust é formada por um coletivo de procuradores, juízes ou oficiais de polícia — o colégio —, que são responsáveis pela sua organização e funcionamento. Dispõe de uma estrutura administrativa dirigida pelo Diretor Administrativo. O Diretor Administrativo que é responsável, sob a supervisão do Presidente do Colégio da Eurojust, pela gestão diária desta organização e pela gestão do pessoal. Para informação detalhada do aviso de abertura de vaga e procedimento para apresentação de candidaturas, consulte o nosso sítio Internet:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

A data limite para apresentação de candidaturas é o dia 17 de março de 2017, à meia noite, hora de Amesterdão.

---
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Valdemar W. Serafimovs, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 22, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that had he not quit, he would have been fired because he did not want to work an additional delivery route to which he had been assigned. While the employer informed all of the drivers that one or two people needed to be laid off, there is nothing in the record to support claimant’s contention that he was one of those that would be fired. In fact, the service supervisor testified that had claimant not left, he would still have his job. Quitting in anticipation of being discharged does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment *(see, Matter of Manson [Hartford Acc. & Indem. Group—Levine],*50 AD2d 980). Consequently, the determination that personal and noncompelling reasons caused claimant *872to voluntarily leave his employment while work was still available for him is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett],*147 AD2d 790, 791, *appeal dismissed*74 NY2d 714).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1411 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1411

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the maximum 
benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, 
                          etc., real property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 1993

   Mr. Thomas of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the maximum 
benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, 
                          etc., real property.

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

SECTION 1. DOUBLING OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT UNDER SPECIAL ESTATE TAX 
              VALUATION RULES FOR CERTAIN FARM, ETC., REAL PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 2032A(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on aggregate reduction in 
fair market value) is amended by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting 
``$1,500,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 256 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 256

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 prohibiting Federal laws and rules that impose liability for conduct 
          occurring before the date of enactment or issuance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1993

   Mr. Ramstad (for himself, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Armey, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
McCollum, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Archer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
Coble, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Kim, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Canady, Mr. Herger, Mr. 
Spence, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Smith 
     of Michigan, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Goss, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Baker of 
California, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Wolf, Mr. McMillan, Mr. Nussle, Mr. 
Saxton, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Royce, Mr. Grams, Mr. Taylor 
of North Carolina, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Cox, Mr. Camp, Mr. Myers 
of Indiana, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Stump, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Buyer, 
 Mr. Linder, Mr. Upton, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. King, Mr. Sam 
  Johnson of Texas, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Roth, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
Blute, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Crane, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Thomas of 
Wyoming, Mr. Klug, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Torkildsen, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. 
 Dickey, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Mica, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Porter, Mr. Stearns, 
Mr. Talent, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Hancock, 
 Mr. Solomon, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Hastert, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Horn, 
 Mr. Franks of Connecticut, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Dornan, and Mr. 
 Hobson) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 prohibiting Federal laws and rules that impose liability for conduct 
          occurring before the date of enactment or issuance.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Under any law enacted by the Congress or rule issued by a Federal 
entity, no person shall be liable for conduct occurring, or with 
respect to income accruing, before the date of the enactment of the law 
or issuance of the rule.''.

                                 <all>
```
rj ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0242 

SHIRLEY CHAMBERS-YOST, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

V. 

MARTIN GUHL, DPHHS, and TERRESSA 

McDANIEL, 

Respondents and Appellees. 

FILED 

JUL 2 8 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Appellant Shirly Chambers-Yost has filed a motion for extension of time to file her 

opening brief. Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until August 25, 2023, to file her 

opening brief. 

No further motions for extensions will be granted unless opposing counsel is 

contacted and the motior udes whether the extension is opposed or unopposed. 

DATED this Z.--(1( day of July, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

07/28/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0242
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BWAY
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997             MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,070                   1,070
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,328                  46,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                       675                     675
<INVENTORY>                                     47,412                  47,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,138                  99,138
<PP&E>                                         133,471                 133,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,490                  21,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 304,415                 304,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,455                  66,455
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            66                      66
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,652                  77,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   304,415                 304,415
<SALES>                                        100,178                 191,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,178                 191,344
<CGS>                                           83,099                 160,689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,692                 183,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    69                     199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   150                     285
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,437                   4,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,486                   7,890
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,249                   3,235
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,237                   4,655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,237                   4,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49                     .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49                     .71
        

</TABLE>
#### BEASLEY v. STATE.

No. 22085.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1942.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal May 27, 1942.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1942.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky in dry area, punishment being a fine of $150.

The only notice of appeal shown in the record is a docket entry. The notice does not appear to have been carried into the court’s minutes. This is required by Art. 827, C.C.P. See authorities cited under said article in Note 4, Vernon’s Tex. C.C.P., Vol. 3. A docket entry is not sufficient.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal

KRUEGER, Judge.

On a former day of this term of court we dismissed the appeal in this case because of a defective record. The record has since been perfected by the filing of a supplemental transcript accompanied by a motion to reinstate the appeal. „ The motion is granted, the appeal is reinstated, and the case will now be disposed of on its merits.

Appellant’s only contention is that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the jury panel on the ground of racial discrimination. On this question the record in this case is in exactly the same condition as that in 162 S.W.2d 964, this day decided, and for the reasons there stated, appellant’s contention is overruled.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### PIERSON et al. v. STATE.

No. 21148.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1940.

G. C. Olsen, of Kermit, for appellant.

■Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for fifty years.

The proof was uncontroverted that the appellants robbed B. B. Wright at the point of a pistol. Appellants did not testify and introduced no witnesses.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,051
<SECURITIES>                                    35,767
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,643
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,611
<PP&E>                                          13,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,491
<SALES>                                         48,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,177
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   386
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (648)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,113)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
SIGTARP 4.1 Table

(values in $millions)

Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Percent

Capital Investments Total - - 4.040 - 4.040 - - 4.740 - 4.740 - - 4.400 - 4.400 (7.17)

Major IT sub-total 

non-Major IT sub-total - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

IT Total - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

non-IT Total - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.400 - 0.400 900.00 

DO Total - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

Major IT sub-total 

non-Major IT sub-total - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

IT Total - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

non-IT Total 

DO Major IT Investments 

DO non-Major IT Investments 

SIGTARP IT SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

015-05-0133 Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

 - - 4.000 - 4.000 - - 4.700 - 4.700 - - 4.000 - 4.000 (14.89)

DO non-IT Investments 

SIGTARP Total - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.400 - 0.400 900.00 

Major IT sub-total 

non-Major IT sub-total 

IT Total 

non-IT Total - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.400 - 0.400 900.00 

SIGTARP Major IT Investments 

SIGTARP non-Major IT Investments 

SIGTARP non-IT Investments 

SIGTARP SPECIALIZED SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.400 - 0.400 900.00 

015-05-0133 Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

 - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.040 - 0.040 - - 0.400 - 0.400 900.00 

FY 2015 Actuals FY 2016 Enacted 

DME O&M Total DME O&M Total DME O&M Total Change from 

CY to BY

FY 2017 Request 

SIGTARP 4.1 Table 2017 Page 1 of 1 3/7/2016
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 21, 2024. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D23-0424 

Lower Tribunal No. 16-44

________________ 

Phyllis Zyskind, et al., 

Appellants, 

vs. 

Elena Koss, etc., 

Appellee. 

An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. 

The Hall Law Firm, P.A., and Adam S. Hall and Roarke Maxwell, for 

appellants. 

Jay M. Levy, P.A., and Jay M. Levy, for appellee. 

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. Shwartzberg v. Knobloch, 98 So. 3d 173, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2012) (“[A] nonresident corporate officer is subject to personal jurisdiction if 

the officer directed ‘fraud or other intentional misconduct’ at parties in the 

State of Florida.”) (citation omitted); see Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v.

Teague, 721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The court's sole inquiry 

and determination [is] whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida, and 

not whether the alleged tort actually occurred.”); Amersham Enters., Inc. v.

Hakim-Daccach, 333 So. 3d 289, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Our Supreme 

Court has previously held that directing a conspiracy and tortious conduct 

toward Florida satisfies both specific long-arm jurisdiction and the due 

process concerns implicated in a minimum contacts analysis.”) (citing § 

48.193(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.); see also NHB Advisors, Inc. v. Czyzyk, 95 So. 

3d 444, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[I]f a plaintiff has successfully alleged a 

cause of action for conspiracy among the defendants to commit tortious acts 

toward the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff has successfully alleged that any 

member of that conspiracy committed tortious acts in Florida in furtherance 

of that conspiracy, then all of the conspirators are subject to the jurisdiction 

of Florida through its long-arm statute.”).
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1054 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1054

 To eliminate the provision that prevents temporary Federal employees 
   from qualifying for the same benefits as are available to Federal 
  employees generally under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To eliminate the provision that prevents temporary Federal employees 
   from qualifying for the same benefits as are available to Federal 
  employees generally under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 6381(1) of 
title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Family and Medical Leave 
Act of 1993, is amended by striking ``a temporary or'' and inserting 
``an''.

                                 <all>
```