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

CERTIFICATION

I,
Frank M. Semple, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report.

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report.

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for
the registrant and have:



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



|Date: February 29, 2008 |  | By: | /s/FRANK M. SEMPLEFrank M. Semple
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|----------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
# L_2008247EN.01002401.xml

| 16.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/24

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 15 September 2008

appointing an Italian member to the Committee of the Regions

(2008/726/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Italian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the expiry of the mandate of Mr Francesco SCOMA, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the expiry of the mandate of Mr Francesco SCOMA,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

Mr Francesco MUSOTTO, Deputato dell’Assemblea Regionale Siciliana.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2008.

For the Council

The President

B. KOUCHNER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
#### KERN, Plaintiff, v. LEHIGH VAL. R. CO., Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 18, 1899.)

Action by John C. Kern, as administrator, etc„ against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

No opinion. There not being four judges qualified to sit in this case, it is hereby ordered that the appeal be transferred to, and heard in, the Third judicial department.
Exhibit 32.1

                              COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
                            (Chief Executive Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Community Banks, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30,  2004 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Eddie  L.
Dunklebarger,  Chief Executive Officer,  Chairman, and President of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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.

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


/s/  Eddie L. Dunklebarger
   ----------------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and President
August 9, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13376]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-52-2020]


Foreign-Trade Zone 38--Spartanburg County, South Carolina; 
Application for Production Authority; Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc.; 
Extension of Rebuttal Comment Period

    The rebuttal period for the amended application for production 
authority within FTZ 38 on behalf of Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc., in 
Greenwood, South Carolina, submitted by the South Carolina State Ports 
Authority (85 FR 49359, August 13, 2020), is being extended to July 2, 
2021, based on a request from the applicant, to allow additional time 
for the submission of rebuttal comments. Submissions shall be addressed 
to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b6d7f714b7f796a6f6e256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b1d0f013b0f091a1f1e551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For further information, contact Diane Finver at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#52163b333c377c143b3c2437201226203336377c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb8fa2aaa5aee58da2a5bdaeb98bbfb9aaafaee5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13376 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Kenneth E. Edge    
|Kenneth E. Edge        
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2006       

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



59
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


Earnings per common share were computed as follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                               --------------------------------------
                                               MARCH 31, 1997          MARCH 31, 1996
<S>                                            <C>                     <C>         
Net income (loss) applicable to common
     shares:                                     $   65,560             ($   83,000)
                                                 ==========             ===========
                                                                       
Weighted average number of common                                      
  shares and of common share equivalents:                              
                                                                       
Weighted average common shares                    5,565,074               5,420,534
                                                                       
Common share equivalents pursuant                                      
  to APB 15                                         254,924                      --
                                                 ----------             -----------
                                                                       
Total primary weighted average number                                  
  of common shares and common share                                    
  equivalents                                     5,819,998               5,420,534
                                                                       
Additional shares for full dilution                                    
  pursuant to APB 15                                     --                      --
                                                 ----------             -----------
                                                                       
Total fully diluted average number of                                  
  common shares and common share                                       
  equivalents                                     5,819,998               5,420,534
                                                 ==========             ===========
                                                                       
Net income (loss) per share:                                           
     Primary                                     $     0.01             ($     0.02)
                                                 ==========             ===========
     Fully diluted                               $     0.01             ($     0.02)
                                                 ==========             ===========
</TABLE>
DAYBREAK OIL AND GAS, INC.
AUDIT FEE PRE-APPROVAL POLICY
 1.
    
    STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
  2.
    
    DELEGATION OF PRE-APPROVAL AUTHORITY
  3.
    
    AUDIT SERVICES
   4.
    
    AUDIT-RELATED SERVICES
  5.
    
    TAX SERVICES
  April 3, 2008
    
    Page 1 of 2




---



##### 



6.
    
    ALL OTHER SERVICES
  7.
    
    PROHIBITED NON-AUDIT SERVICES
 §
    
    Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial
statements of the audit client§
    
    Financial information systems design and implementation§
    
    Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions or contribution-in-kind reports§
    
    Actuarial services§
    
    Internal audit outsourcing services§
    
    Management functions§
    
    Human resources§
    
    Broker-dealer, investment adviser or investment banking services§
    
    Legal services§
    
    Expert services unrelated to the audit
 8.
    
    PRE-APPROVAL FEE LEVELS
  9.
    
    SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
  10.
    
    PROCEDURES
   April 3, 2008
    
    Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2215 

To suspend temporarily the duty on formulations of triasulfuron. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on formulations of 

triasulfuron. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF TRIASULFURON. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.38.52 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 formulations of triasulfuron) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

7 31/2003’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2215 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
(23 Misc. Rep. 52.)

#### FIELDING v. COHOES MASONIC TEMPLE ASS’N OF CITY OF COHOES.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County.

February, 1898.)

Change of Venue—Convenience of Witnesses.

The cause of an action commenced in R. county arose in A. county, where resided a majority of the witnesses, who could attend in either county without great inconvenience. The calendar in A. county was not overcrowded. *Held,*that the place of trial should be changed to A. county, under Code Civ. Proc. § 987, authorizing such a change to promote-the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice.

Action by Harry P. Fielding against the Cohoes Masonic Temple Association of the City of Cohoes, ÍT. Y. Motion to change the place of trial from the county of Eensselaer to the county of Albany. Granted.

Foster, Kelly & Isenbergh, for the motion.

Charles F. Doyle, opposed.

CHASE, J.

The Code of Civil Procedure (section 987) provides that the court may, by order, change the place of trial “where the convenience of witnesses, and the ends of justice, will be promoted by the change.” It is conceded that a majority of the necessary witnesses in this case reside in the city of Cohoes, in the county of Albany. The city of Cohoes is connected with Troy, the county seat of Sen's*470selaer county, as well as with Albany, the county seat of Albany county, by electric and steam' roads. It is but a few miles' from either place. The witnesses can attend in either county without great inconvenience. The cause of action arose in the county of Albany. A long line of decisions of this court hold, in substance, that the ends of justice will be promoted by requiring an action to be tried in the county where the cause of action arose, unless there is some other and better reason which requires its trial elsewhere. The condition of the calendars in the counties of New York and Kings constitutes a sufficient reason why causes should not' be sent from adjoining counties to either of those counties for trial. No such reason exists in regard to the county of Albany.

The order is granted, with $10 costs to abide the event.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Scott A. Montgomery,certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National MercantileBancorp;

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave:

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 16,  2004 |   | /s/  SCOTT A. MONTGOMERY |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Scott A. Montgomery        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer    |

 

1

----
[No. 21624-8-II.

Division Two.

October 10, 1997.]

#### Molly L. Lewis, *Appellant,*v. Viacom Cable, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 96-2-08686-5, Thomas Felnagle, J., entered January 10, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Hunt, J.
#### KLIGER, Respondent, v. ROSENFELD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Action by Max Kliger against Samuel Rosenfeld and another. E. W. S. 'Johnston, for appellants. L. H. Levin, for respondent.

No opinion. Order modified, by requiring plaintiff to increase bond from $250 to $750, and, as modified, affirmed without costs. Settle order on notice.
NO. 07-04-0048-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

MARCH 2, 2004

______________________________

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, RELATOR

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, R. Wayne Johnson, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing

respondent Caroline Woodburn, District Clerk of Potter County, to (1) accept and file a

petition for habeas corpus relator wishes to file, (2) obey her oath of office, and (3) obey

certain specified decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the law in general. He

also seeks our declaration that an application for habeas corpus is not subject to the

provisions of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. chapter 11 (Vernon Supp. 2004),

concerning vexatious litigants. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

A district clerk is not one of the officials against whom we have jurisdiction to issue

writs of mandamus pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004).

Nor does relator so urge. Instead, relator claims that we have jurisdiction in this original

proceeding because respondent’s refusal to accept his suit interferes with this court’s
-2-

appellate jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). He cites, in part, In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d

181 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). 

In Washington the relator filed a notice of appeal from a trial court proceeding. The

district clerk failed to process and forward the notice to the appellate court. The court of

appeals noted that the filing of a notice of appeal invokes appellate jurisdiction, and

determined that it had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing the district clerk

to perform the ministerial duty of forwarding the notice to the appropriate appellate court.

Id. at 181-82.

We agree with relator that we have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to

enforce our jurisdiction. See Gov’t. Code § 22.221(a); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d at 182.

But, such jurisdiction exists to enforce our actual, as opposed to potential, jurisdiction. See

Shelvin v. Lykos, 741 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, orig.

proceeding). 

Relator does not claim the existence of, nor does he present documents which he

claims evidence an appealable order, or a notice of appeal which has not been forwarded

as occurred in Washington. Our appellate jurisdiction as to the lawsuit relator alleges

respondent refuses to file is potential, as it is with any lawsuit which might be filed and

eventually appealed to this court. But, our jurisdiction over such a suit is not actual until

an event occurs which ripens our potential jurisdiction into actual jurisdiction. And, it is

relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief he
-3-

requests. See generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917

(Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). He has not done so. 

We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. 

Phil Johnson

Chief Justice