alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31(b)****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**     I, Herman F. Dick, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Core Molding Technologies, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 annualreport based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 28, 2007         /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.   Herman F. Dick, Jr.   Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, andChief Financial Officer
No. 12-7941.

#### Ware *v.*Force.

Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13632]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


NSF/DOE Nuclear Science Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: NSF/DOE Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (1176).
    Date and Time: June 9, 1998; 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Place: Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Bradley Keister, Program Director for 
Nuclear Physics, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1891.
    Purpose of Meeting: To present and discuss a charge concerning 
laboratory facilities funded by the Department of Energy.
    Agenda: Presentation of the charge concerning DOE facilities (D. 
Kovar, DOE) Development and discussion of plan, to respond to the 
charge Public Comment (*).

    (*) Persons wishing to speak should make arrangements through 
the Contact Person identified above.

    Dated: May 18, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-13632 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Price of Cove Point, MD  Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Price to Greece (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Price of Cove Point, MD  Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Price to Greece (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6.75   | W      | 12.00  | 8.04   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-837.

#### K. C. *v.*Indiana.

Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                (Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Slav Stein, as President and Chief Executive Officer of AESP, Inc. (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:

1.   the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual
     period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S.
     Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
     and

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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


Date:  March 31, 2003                                  /s/ Slav Stein
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Slav Stein
                                                       President and Chief
                                                       Executive Officer

<PAGE>




                (Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, John F. Wilkens, as Chief Financial Officer of AESP, Inc. (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:

1.   the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual
     period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S.
     Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
     and

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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


Date:  March 31, 2003                                /s/ John F. Wilkens
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     John F. Wilkens
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 8, 2011

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10-3728

MAURICE COBIGE, personally and as special 

representative of the estate of Patricia Cobige,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 06 C 3807

Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.

Order

Plaintiff-appellee filed a petition for rehearing on July 26, 2011, and 

defendants-appellants filed a petition for rehearing on August 9, 2011. All of the 

judges on the panel have voted to deny rehearing. The petitions for rehearing are 

therefore DENIED.

The opinion of this court issued on July 12, 2011, is amended as follows:

Page 2 line 22 is amended by adding “with respect to compensatory 

damages” after the word “officers”.
No. 10-3728 Page 2

Page 3 lines 4 to 6 are amended by deleting the sentence that begins 

“The state-law claim...”.

Page 9 is amended by replacing the final two paragraphs with this 

language:

The district court should take care to avoid recurrence of a problem 

that cropped up in the first trial. The jury’s verdict is ambiguous. It 

awarded $3 million in compensatory damages on one count of the 

complaint and $2 million on another. It is possible that the jury meant 

these to be added, as the judge did, for a total of $5 million, but it is also 

possible that the jury meant them to be alternative awards, with only the 

greater to be enforced. The verdict form used in this case was not as 

opaque as the one in Thomas v. Cook County Sheriff’s Department, 604 F.3d 

293, 310–14 (7th Cir. 2010), but it was far from ideal and should be 

improved for the next trial. Thomas offers some help for that endeavor. It 

would be inappropriate to vacate just the wrongful-death award, while 

leaving the awards on other theories untouched. The jury may have seen 

a relation among the amounts it awarded for compensatory damages 

under different theories of liability and adjusted one in light of the others. 

If any of them must be retried, all must be retried.

The judgment is affirmed to the extent it establishes the police 

officers’ liability and the amount of punitive damages but is vacated to 

the extent that it assesses the amount of compensatory damages. The case 

is remanded for a new trial limited to compensatory damages.
# C_2010129EN.01001001.xml

| 19.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5724 — Suez Environnement/AGBAR)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 129/03

On 27 April 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5724. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5724. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Hollander v Shepherd

App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 84226(U)

denied
#### Hashmi, Matter of, v New York City Police Dept.

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 419

granted
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1682

To unify the formulation and execution of United States diplomacy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 18 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence

A BILL

To unify the formulation and execution of United States

diplomacy.

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

3 TITLE I—SHORT TITLE

4 SEC. 101. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unification

5 of United States Diplomacy Act of 1993’’.

6 TITLE II—UNIFICATION OF UNITED STATES

7 DIPLOMACY

8 SEC. 201. PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this title

9 to unify the formulation and execution of United States

10 foreign policy by providing overall authority over intel11 ligence activities to the Secretary of State.
2

S 1682 IS

1 SEC. 202. FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

2 (1) the creation of the Central Intelligence

3 Agency as a separate entity during the Cold War

4 undermined the role of the Department of State as

5 the primary agency of the United States Govern6 ment in formulating and conducting foreign policy

7 and providing information to the President concern8 ing the state of world affairs; and

9 (2) it is desirable for the Secretary of State to

10 serve as the official primarily responsible for coordi11 nating and managing the gathering of intelligence.

12 SEC. 203. TRANSFER OF INTELLIGENCE FUNC13 TIONS.—

14 (a) Not later than two years after the effective

15 date of this Act there shall be transferred to and

16 vested in the Secretary of State all of the functions,

17 powers and duties of the Director of Central Intel18 ligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence

19 Agency and any officer or component of the Central

20 Intelligence Agency.

21 (b) Not later than one year after the effective

22 date of this Act, the Secretary of State, after con23 sultation with the Director of the Central Intel24 ligence Agency and other relevant officials, shall

25 transmit to the Congress a plan for (1) effecting the
3

S 1682 IS

1 transfer of functions under this section and (2) ad2 ministering those functions. In designing the plan

3 the Secretary shall also consult with the Congress,

4 other relevant federal agencies and the President’s

5 Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

6 (c) The Secretary of State is authorized to con7 duct the functions transferred by subsection (a).

8 (d) The transfer of a function or office from an

9 officer or agency to the Secretary of State includes

10 any aspects of such function or office vested in a

11 subordinate of such officer or in a component of

12 such agency.

Æ
2017-0083.

#### State v. Norfleet.

Coshocton App. No. 2016CA0009, 2016-Ohio-8236.
#### Com. v. Doheny12

02/08/2016

269 WAL (2015)

12

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1125
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1912 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1912

          For the relief of Ethel M. Roberts of Newark, Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              March 9 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

   Mr. Glenn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          For the relief of Ethel M. Roberts of Newark, Ohio.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. (a) Notwithstanding section 8341(h)(3)(B) or any other 
provision of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, in the 
administration of such chapter the marriage of Hoyt J. Roberts and 
Ethel M. Roberts (formerly Ethel Maxine Smith) of Newark, Ohio on July 
15, 1989, shall be deemed to be null abnitio, and Ethel M. Roberts 
shall be entitled to a former spouse annuity based upon her marriage to 
Hoyt J. Roberts on May 14, 1950 and the election of such former spouse 
annuity by Hoyt J. Roberts on January 1, 1988.
    (b) The provisions of subsection (a) may not be construed to effect 
the application of any other Federal, State, or local law with regard 
to the marriage of Hoyt J. Roberts and Ethel M. Roberts on July 15, 
1989.
    (c) The provisions of this subsection shall be effective on and 
after July 15, 1989.
    Sec. 2. Nothing in this Act may be construed as an inference of 
liability on the part of the United States.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Furnished 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 Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eric Schumann, Senior Vice President  Finance and Principal Financial and Accounting 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; 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/ Eric SchumannName:

Eric SchumannTitle:

Senior Vice President  FinancePrincipal Financial and Accounting OfficerDate: May 20, 2005




A signed original of this
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. and will be retained by Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
July 7, 2011 

Comments on Benzo[a]pyrene risk assessment documents from NIEHS/NTP 

The toxicological review for benzo[a]pyrene was read with attention to clarity, flow, thoroughness, and 

scientific soundness. Overall, the document was well-written and provided an excellent review of the 

available literature. The mechanistic section (4.5) and dose-response assessment (5) were particularly 

strong. The rationale for study selection and uncertainty factors were clear and well-justified. 

The one area that seemed to have a disproportionate emphasis was the metabolism section (3.3). There 

was minimal discussion of the ultimate carcinogen (benzo[a]pyrene 7,8 dihydrodiol 9,10 epoxide) and a 

great deal of emphasis on specific enzymes and their roles in contributing to phase I activation or 

detoxification reactions. This gave the impression that BPDE could be important, but its role in 

carcinogenicity was not confirmed, which is contrary to the section on mechanisms (4.5.2). A more 

robust discussion of the evidence supporting BPDE as the ultimate carcinogen and mention of the 

importance of the bay region in PAH carcinogenicity, in general, could be informative in this section.

In reading the oral reference dose section, it was interesting to see that ovarian weight was the critical 

endpoint for calculating the RfD. It would be informative to include a minimal amount of information on 

whether this ovotoxicity is seen with other related compounds or mixtures of PAHs. 

Cynthia Rider
Exhibit 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           OF MEXCO ENERGY CORPORATION
                          PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.1350


      The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Mexco Energy Corporation (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that to his
knowledge on the date hereof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
            the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 and filed with the
            Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
            Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company (the "Report") fully
            complies with the requirements of that section.

      (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


      This written certification is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the report. A signed original of this
statement 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.


Date:  August 9, 2006                                    /s/ Nicholas C. Taylor
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Nicholas C. Taylor
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date:  August 9, 2006                                    /s/ Tamala L. McComic
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Tamala L. McComic
                                                         Chief Financial Officer