alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
**Chief Executive Officer’s Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)**
I, Michael K. Paulk, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of American Natural Energy Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
 (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date:  March 31, 2005 /s/ Michael K. Paulk   Michael K. Paulk   President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ashford Grant, Appellant.

On the court’s own motion, its decision and order on motion dated December 7, 1990, is recalled and vacated and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), both rendered August 19, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under indictment No. 67302 and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 68346, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, Steven M. Jaeger is relieved as attorney for the defendant and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Colin F. O’Donell, of 200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 100, Garden City, New York 11530, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on *689behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order of this court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers (including the typewritten stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Based upon this court’s independent review of the record, we conclude an arguable issue exists with respect, *inter alia,*to whether the sentencing court properly ordered the defendant to reimburse to the Nassau County Police Department the so-called "buy” money that was expended in connection with the defendant’s arrest *(see, People v Rowe,*75 NY2d 948). Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned *(see, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606; *People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906; *People v Miller,*99 AD2d 1021). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knoll, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Barry L.McCabe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

 

a.               The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.              The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

May 10,2010

 

 
| /s/ Barry L.  McCabe     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| **Barry  L. McCabe**     |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By notice dated August 14, 2000 and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on August 23, 2000, (65 FR 51330), Applied Science Labs, Inc., A Division of Alltech Associates, Inc., 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, P.O. Box 440, State College, Pennsylvania 16801, made application  by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration  to be registered as an importer of the  basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleHeroine (9200)
ICocaine  (9041)
IICodeine  (9050)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMethadone  (9250)
IIMorphine  (9300)
II
 The firm plans to import these controlled  substances for the manufacture of reference standards. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Applied Science Labs, Inc., to import  the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated  Applied Science Labs, Inc.,  on a regular basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the company's records, verification of the company's compliance with  state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act and in accordance with title  21, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above. November 20, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion  Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-30938 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### FREEMAN v. STATE.

No. 20026.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1938.

Wm. E. Davenport, of San Angelo, for appellant.

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

*301CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of chickens; the punishment, a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for 90 days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-11353

_____________________

WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; ALVIN L. ALM,

Assistant Secretary for Enviornmental Management; MARY

ANN SULLIVAN, Deputy General Counsel for Environment

and Civilian Nuclear Defense Programs; JAMES M.

OWENDOFF, Acting Secretary for Environmental

Management,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls

(7:97-CV-202)

_______________________________________________________

June 17, 1998

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Waste Control Specialists complains by petition for

rehearing that we have decided its due process claims

prematurely. To the contrary, we have decided that Waste

Control’s lawsuit is premature. We have only decided that the

Department of Energy has followed the statutes in the policies
2

thus far announced for Fernald contract proposals. Waste

Control’s suit seeks a declaration that its proposal may not be

rejected by DOE because the DOE policy is illegal. We deny that

claim without reaching any due process contention about DOE’s

conduct of the contract procedure in any other respect for

cleanup of the Fernald nuclear site.

Amicus Andrews Industrial Foundation complains that our

opinion allows the Department of Energy to surrender all

regulation of disposal sites to the states or to no one. Our

opinion did not address the regulation of disposal sites except

to say that the statutes provide for either Nuclear Regulatory

Commission or Department of Energy control.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
#### MONDRAGON v. STATE.

No. 20686.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1939.

*269Fred H. Woodard, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of marihuana; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant, in his motion for a rehearing, for the first time contends that the judgment of affirmance should be set aside and the cause reversed and remanded, because the court reporter who took the testimony died before completing the statement of facts and the notes of his objections to evidence. That by reason thereof he is unable to present to this Court a true and correct statement of facts and bills of exceptions. The allegations in the motion are entirely too general. There is no allegation to the effect that after the stenographer died, he prepared a statement of facts and bills of exceptions and presented the same to the District Attorney and the judge who presided over the trial for approval, etc., as he might have done under Art. 760 C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann.C:C.P. art. 760. Nor is it alleged that the stenographer died shortly before the time in which to file the same had expired and he did not have sufficient time left in which to prepare one from memory and file it within the prescribed time. Consequently he has not brought himself within the rule which would relieve him of any negligence in failing to prepare a statement of facts, accompanied by a proper'certificate as to its correctness, as required by law, and present the same to the Court and District Attorney for approval. See Vol. 4, Tex.Juris., Sec. 286, p. 418 and authorities cited.

The motion for a rehearing is overruled.

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.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 20082.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1939.

A. L. Lewis, of Houston, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for life.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. In the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to appraise appellant’s bills of exception.

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.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Moller International (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report), Paul S. Moller, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the Best of his knowledge, that:
  (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:  10/13/2010
  Signed:
  /s/ Paul S. Moller
  Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 - 50 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION FORM 10Q SECOND QUARTER 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,715
<INVENTORY>                                     36,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,050
<PP&E>                                          49,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,412
<SALES>                                         57,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,717
<CGS>                                           66,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,040)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,680)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (7,510)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,170)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.72)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,997] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 21, 2000 in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Western Division, Hayden Lake, Idaho.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 1st day of November, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-30623  Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News News
 Multi-Domain Battle, 1781: the Lessons of Yorktown Joint and Combined Warfighting School, Joint Forces Staff College, National Defense University
 "Multi-Domain Battle, 1781: the Lessons of Yorktown"
 SHARE
 PRINT
  air-sea battle Battle of Yorktown Domain competition multi-domain battle Theater Strategy and Campaigning
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### CLIFTON v. STATE.

No. 15876.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1933.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Aus-* tin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property over the value of $50, punishment being assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

No statement of facts or bills of exception appear in the record. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is "affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Lee R. SMITH.

No. 11791.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

July 22, 1940.

Richard K. Phelps, Acting U. S. Atty., and Charles L. Chalender, Atty., Department of Justice, both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

*944Lawrence E. Goldman, of Kansas City, Mo., for-appellee.

PER CURIAM. '

Appeal from District Court docketed and dismissed without costs to either party in this Court, on motion of appellant.