alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ni Yifeng, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of APT Satellite Holdings
     Limited;

(2)  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this annual report;

(3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of
     the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

(4)  The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible of
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this annual report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about
          the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the
          end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
          evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

(5)  The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2006

/s/ NI YIFENG
Ni Yifeng
Executive Director and President
APT Satellite Holdings Limited
From: Saint, Robert D. [mailto:robert.saint@nreca.coop] 

Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 7:13 PM 

To: Richard Parker; phopkinson@hvolt.com; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; 

adelaski@standardsasap.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; Aris Marantan; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; 

august.esch@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Brian Coffey; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; 

bsmith@federalpacific.com; Chris Boulduc; Caitlin Johnson; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; 

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; charlied@uus.org; 

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; clark.silcox@nema.org; cstephens@neea.org; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; 

dave.millure@metglas.com; DYoung@energy-solution.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; 

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; 

James.Lass@cleco.com; Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov; Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov; 

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; jhodge@howard-ind.com; 

Jim.creevy@nema.org; Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org; john.caskey@nema.org; 

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; 

Matthew Nardotti; maxinesavitz@aol.com; mhyland@appanet.org; Michael Rivest; mwaltner@nrdc.org; 

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; phil@pjharter.com; pkumar@publicpower.org; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; 

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; Saint, Robert D.; 

robert.vanbuskirk@ee.doe.gov; rroy@nrdc.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; snadel@aceee.org; 

srosenstock@eei.org; tballo@earthjustice.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; thomas.patzner@us.schneiderelectric.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo; Mahesh P. Sampat; Kenneth Winder 

Subject: Electric co-op density for DOE Distribution Transformer Efficiency Standards 

As requested at the DOE Distribution Transformer Efficiency Standards negotiating group

meeting, attached is information about number of customers per mile of line, number of

customers and peak load for each distribution cooperative.  The spreadsheet shows the

information per cooperative and combined by state.   

  

Bob Saint  

Principal Distribution Engineer, Energy and Power Division  

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)  

4301 Wilson Blvd  

Arlington, VA 22203  

Phone: (703) 907-5863  

Cell: (703) 283-5078

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the 

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 

review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, 

please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
No. 12-762.

#### Marsh *v.*Akers et al.

Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certio-rari denied.
#### In the Matter of Darnel J.P., Appellant, v Lianna Y.D., Respondents.

[53 NYS3d 294]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2016, which, after a hearing, found that petitioner was equitably estopped from asserting paternity of the subject child and dismissed the paternity petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude petitioner from pursuing his paternity claim *(see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D.,*7 NY3d 320, 326-327 [2006]). Petitioner waited almost four years after the child’s birth, after having seen the child approximately four times, before commencing the paternity proceeding, during which time he failed to communicate with the child or provide any financial support *(see Matter of Cecil R. v Rachel A.,*102 AD3d 545, 546 [1st Dept 2013]; *Matter of Luis S. v Zoraida L.,*39 AD3d 377 [1st Dept 2007]). On one occasion, petitioner verbally and physically abused the child’s mother in the child’s presence, and the mother obtained an order of protection against him. Approximately two weeks later, curiously, petitioner filed the instant petition for paternity *(see e.g. Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D.,*127 AD2d 6, 16 [2d Dept 1987]).

The child was brought up believing that the mother’s husband, whom she calls “Daddy,” was her biological father, and identifies members of his extended family as members of *407her own family *(see Matter of Richard A.M. v Alejandra H.,*123 AD3d 1129 [2d Dept 2014]). Furthermore, she only knew petitioner as the man who hit her mother. Accordingly, it is not in the child’s best interests to interfere with her relationship with the only father she has ever known *(see Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N.,*15 NY3d 1, 6 [2010]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 3.53   | 4.84   | 4.84   | 5.31  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.39   | 8.71   | 11.43  | 6.84   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 11-1381.

#### Poblete *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 31-25**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 of MichiganConsolidated Gas Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. (Intentionally omitted)  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 likelyto adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR. Anthony F. Earley, Jr. Date: August 8, 2006 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer of Michigan Consolidated Gas  Company  
20
#### Daniel Almonte, Plaintiff, v Citibank NMTC Corporation et al., Respondents, and ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[54 NYS3d 8]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 4, 2016, which granted defendants-respondents’ (collectively Citi) motion for summary judgment on their cross claim against defendant ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, Inc. (ABM) for breach of contract to procure insurance, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

Citigroup Technology, Inc. (CTI) and ABM entered into a “Service Contractor Agreement,” whereby ABM agreed to provide certain janitorial services for Citi. Under section 7 of the agreement, entitled “Insurance,” ABM was required to obtain the insurance set forth in Exhibit C “and in a form reasonably satisfactory to CTI.” Exhibit C required commercial general liability insurance with a combined single limit of no less than $3,000,000 per occurrence, and that CTI, among others, be named as an additional insured. It also required ABM to “furnish to CTI Certificate(s) of Insurance evidencing the above coverage.”

ABM procured a $2,000,000 policy with a $1,000,000 self-insured retention (SIR). It also furnished to Citi’s insurance agent Certificates of Liability Insurance evincing the $1,000,000 SIR. Following the commencement of plaintiff’s personal injury action, which implicates the required insurance, Citi moved for summary judgment on its cross claim against ABM for breach of contract for failing to procure the required insurance, arguing that ABM impermissibly obtained the SIR.

The motion court erred in granting the motion. Although nei*445ther section 7 nor Exhibit C in the agreement mention an SIR, section 8, entitled “Indemnification,” provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he obligations set forth in this section shall remain in effect regardless of whether [ABM] maintains or fails to maintain any insurance coverage required hereunder, or self-insures for any liability, and *any self-insured coverage shall be deemed insurance coverage hereunder”*(emphasis added). Accordingly, the contract is ambiguous as to whether an SIR is a permissible form of insurance coverage. Issues of fact also exist as to whether Citi accepted the SIR or waived any objection to it, given the “reasonably satisfactory” language in section 7 of the agreement and the fact that Citi did not previously object to the SIR even though the Certificates of Liability Insurance evinced the $1,000,000 SIR.

Concur—Acosta, J.R, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1

             [Letterhead of Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.]


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement on (No. 333-44837) Form S-8 of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated October 28, 2003 (except for Note 19 which is dated March
12, 2004), relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Falmouth
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2003 and 2002, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended September 30, 2003, which report is included in the September 30,
2003 annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc.

                                 /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.
                                 SHATSWELL, McLeod & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
April 6, 2004

<PAGE>
No. 12-8496.

#### Snard *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14384]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988, Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal-State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gambling on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has 
approved Amendment V to the Tribal-State Compact for Regulation of 
Class III Gaming Between The Klamath Tribes and the State of Oregon, 
which was executed on March 19, 1998.

DATES: This action is effective June 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Indian 
Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 
20240, (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: May 20, 1998.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-14384 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                       
|No chart available.                                                       
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Kentucky Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 12-8078.

#### Greer *v.*Michigan.

Cir. Ct. Wayne County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Robinson, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 74]

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated March 4, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, (2) a decision of the same court dated March 31, 2014, and (3) an amended decision of the same court dated April 3, 2014.

Ordered that the appeals from the decision and the amended decision are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant argues that the Supreme Court erred in upwardly departing from his presumptive risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), so as to designate him a level two sex offender. An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes that there exists an aggravating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines *(see*Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter the Guidelines]; *People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; *People v Ziliox,*145 AD3d 925 [2016]). After such a factor is identified, and if the facts supporting the existence of the factor have been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the court must then “exercise its discretion by weighing the aggravating and [any] mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an . . . under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” *(People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d at 861; *see People v Ziliox,*145 AD3d 925 [2016]).

Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the People presented clear and convincing evidence in the form of reliable hearsay *(see People v Sincerbeaux,*27 NY3d 683 [2016]) proving the existence of an aggravating factor not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines. Specifically, the People established that the defendant’s evident intent was to engage in sexual intercourse with the then-14-year-old complainant, and that his attempt was only thwarted by her brother’s entrance into the room *(see*Guidelines at 9; *People v Scott,*85 AD3d 890, 891 [2011]). Since *776the rape was not completed, the defendant was assessed only 10 points under factor 2 for touching under the complainant’s clothing, and not 25 points for sexual intercourse. Under these circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that an upward departure was warranted to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism *(see id.*at 891).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.