alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Christopher J. Policinski, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Land O’Lakes, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 report;     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 disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal 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:     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2007         By: /s/ Christopher Policinski     Christopher J. Policinski    President and Chief Executive Officer  
36
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Aaron Murray, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 403]—

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 1, 2011 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

*1528In 2005, petitioner was convicted of assault in the second *degree*and was sentenced to three years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. After serving part of his sentence, he was released to postrelease supervision in August 2007. In September 2008, he was charged with violating the conditions of his release by, among other things, possessing a box cutting razor. A supplementary violation of release report was issued in October 2008 charging petitioner with two instances of threatening his parole officer. Following a final parole revocation hearing, which was adjourned several times and finally completed in May 2009, the above charges were sustained, petitioner’s release was revoked and a delinquent time assessment was imposed that was equivalent to petitioner’s maximum expiration date. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereafter brought the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging it. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that petitioner’s many procedural objections have not been preserved for our review as he has raised them for the first time in his brief, not at the hearing or in his administrative appeal *(see People ex rel. Delaney v New York State Div. of Parole,*65 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2009], *appeal dismissed*13 NY3d 904 [2009]; *Matter of Peek v Dennison,*39 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2007], *appeal dismissed*9 NY3d 860 [2007]). We find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing was not neutral and detached inasmuch as he conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner and the determination of guilt was based on the evidence presented *(compare Matter of Moore v Alexander,*53 AD3d 747, 748-749 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 710 [2008]). Furthermore, we are not persuaded that the imposition of a delinquent time assessment equivalent to petitioner’s maximum expiration date was excessive under the circumstances presented *(see Matter of Davis v New York State Bd. of Parole,*81 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2011]; *Matter of Bowes v Dennison,*20 AD3d 845, 846 [2005]).

Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 99.1



|                                 |  |  |                         | 
|-------------------------------- |  |  | ----------------------- | 
|NEWS RELEASE                     |  |  |                         | 
|                                 | 
|For further information contact: |  |  |                         | 
|                                 | 
|Kerry J. Chauvin                 |  |  | Robin A. Seibert        | 
|Chief Executive Officer          |  |  | Chief Financial Officer | 
|985.872.2100                     |  |  | 985.872.2100            | 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 18,
2010

GULF ISLAND FABRICATION, INC.

TO ANNOUNCE EARNINGS RESULTS

AND QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL

Houma, LA  (BUSINESS WIRE)  October 18, 2010  Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (NASDAQ: GIFI), will announce 2010
third quarter earnings after the market close on Thursday, October 28, 2010.

The management of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. will hold a
conference call on Friday, October 29, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time (10:00 a.m. Eastern Time) to discuss the Companys financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The call is accessible by webcast through CCBN and by dialing the following:



|         |  |                   
|-------- |  | ------------------
|Dial In: |  | 1.888.239.5289    
|         | 
|Webcast: |  | www.gulfisland.com

A digital rebroadcast of the
call is available two hours after the call and ending November 5, 2010 by dialing:



|                 |  |               
|---------------- |  | --------------
|Phone Number:    |  | 1.888.203.1112
|                 | 
|Replay Passcode: |  | 1142194       

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., based in Houma,
Louisiana, is a leading fabricator of offshore drilling and production platforms, hull and/or deck sections of floating production platforms and other specialized structures used in the development and production of offshore oil and gas reserves.
These structures include jackets and deck sections of fixed production platforms; hull and/or deck sections of floating production platforms (such as tension leg platforms (TLPs)), SPARs, FPSOs, piles, wellhead protectors,
subsea templates and various production, compressor and utility modules, offshore living quarters, tanks and barges. The Company also provides offshore interconnect pipe hook-up, inshore marine construction, manufacture and repair of pressure
vessels, heavy lifts such as ship integration and TLP module integration, loading and offloading of jack-up drilling rigs, semi-submersible drilling rigs, TLPs, SPARs, or other similar cargo, onshore and offshore scaffolding, piping insulation
services, and steel warehousing and sales.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Paul
DePond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge, the
Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology
Corporation.


Date:
      August 13, 2010
                  By:
                  /s/
      Paul F. DePondName: Paul F.
      DePondTitle:  Chief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




I,
Gerald W. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Notify Technology Corporation.


Date:
      August 13, 2010
                    By:
                    /s/
      Gerald W. RiceName:
      Gerald W. RiceTitle:   Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Notify Technology Corporation and will be retained by Notify Technology
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research People & Locations







Carla  Olson
                        Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (509) 335-1502
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 335-6654(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3621

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Roland Rogers, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 3, 1998

 Filed: February 12, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roland Rogers pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and to possessing

cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of section 841(a)(1). Although Rogers

objected to the use of the Guidelines for crack cocaine, rather than for cocaine, arguing

the heightened crack cocaine penalties violated his Fifth Amendment right to equal

protection, the district court denied the objection and sentenced Rogers to two 1
-2-

concurrent terms of 121 months imprisonment, and five years supervised release.

Rogers now appeals, and we affirm, because Rogers&s challenge is foreclosed by our

prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of the 100-to-1 ratio. See, e.g., United

States v. Carter, 91 F.3d 1196, 1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v.

Jackson, 67 F.3d 1359, 1367 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1684 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Official Journal C 180A/2 Au

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 180A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 492 August 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 180A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 492 August 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2006/C 180A/1 | | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2006/C 180A/1

1

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2006/C 180A/2 | Vacancy in the Directorate-General Legal Services — Legal Counsel | 3 |

III   Notices

European Central Bank

2006/C 180A/2

Vacancy in the Directorate-General Legal Services — Legal Counsel

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 
| Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that: |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K; |
|-------------------------------------------------|

 

to the best of my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this Report.

 

Dated: March 30, 2005
|   | s/Jeffrey R. BaileyJeffrey R. Bailey,President |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|

 

----
Cite as 2015 Ark. 86



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-975

RALPH MALONE APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered February 26, 2015

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TO FILE BELATED BRIEF [PULASKICOUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 60CR07-4847] HONORABLE BARRY A. SIMS, JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT. PER CURIAM On February 13, 2009, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Ralph Malone had entered a plea of guilty to rape and had been sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. On March 18, 2014, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se motion seeking to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment. The motion was dismissed on the ground that the trial court did not have authority to consider it, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court. He now asks by motions that counsel be appointed to represent him and that he be allowed to file a belated brief. As it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal, the appeal is dismissed, and the motions are moot. See Winters v. State , 2014 Ark. 399, 441 S.W.3d 22 (per curiam). Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(e) (2014) provides that only this court may grant leave to proceed with a belated appeal. Gray v. State , 277 Ark. 442, 642 S.W.2d 306 (1982). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing the motion.Cite as 2015 Ark. 86

Appeal dismissed; motions moot. Ralph Malone , pro se appellant. No response.

2
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 32005M3875

**Commission Decision of 16/08/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3875 - PAI PARTNERS SAS / KWIK-FIT) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic)****

| |Brussels, 16.08.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/204489

To the notifying party :

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3875 - PAI partners SAS / KWIK-FIT Notification of 8.07.2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 175 of 15/07/2005 (p.11)

1.  On 8.07/2005 , the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 by which P.A.I Partners S.A.S (“PAI”, France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Kwik-Fit Group Ltd (“Kwik-Fit”, UK), by way of purchase of shares.

2.  The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- PAI : private equity fund

- Kwik-Fit : repair and maintenance of automotive vehicles .

3.  After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

4.  For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

[signed]

Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<CASH>                                      53,521,000
<SECURITIES>                                34,516,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,692,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (3,889,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,185,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           115,436,000
<PP&E>                                     142,108,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (41,575,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             385,508,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,137,000
<BONDS>                                    200,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 158,236,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               385,508,000
<SALES>                                      3,919,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,271,000
<CGS>                                        4,779,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,669,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,049,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,984,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,732,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,087,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,355,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (2,481,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,836,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019357EN.01003801.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/38

---

Action brought on 16 August 2019 — DS and Others v Commission and EEAS

(Case T-573/19)

(2019/C 357/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DS and 718 other applicants (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions fixing the applicants’ number of days of paid annual leave for 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions fixing the applicants’ number of days of paid annual leave for 2019;

| — | in any event, order the Commission and the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission and the EEAS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants put forward a single plea in law, based on an objection of illegality directed against Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the same grounds as those adopted by the Court in the judgment of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission, (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873). According to the applicants, the defendant institutions refused to apply that judgment even though its effects are not suspended, which is akin to an unlawful suspension of operation of a judgment of the Court.

---