alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

I, Herbert M.Stein, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-KSB/A of ApogeeTechnology, Inc.; and

2.     Based onmy 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: April 27,2007
| /s/ Herbert M. Stein                  |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Herbert M. Stein                      |   |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |   |   |   |
| (principal executive officer)         |   |   |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1213

HERBERT WARREN LUX, JR.; PATSY JEAN LUX,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

COUNTY OF SPOTSYLVANIA; SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Ronnie B. Acors, Mary

Lee Carter, Jean W. Jones, B. Jerry Marcus,

Emmitt B. Marshal, Martha B. Mastin, James B.

Smith, L. Kimbal Payne, III, David Calbo,

Larry W. Davis and Michael B. O'Keefe; JOHN A.

GIBNEY, JR.; SPOTSWOOD CONSTRUCTION LOANS,

L.C.; KENNETH S. POTTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-3)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 8, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Warren Lux, Jr., Patsy Jean Lux, Appellants Pro Se. Robert

A. Dybing, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia; James

Joseph Burns, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellees.
2
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying

their motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in their Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) action seeking to set aside on the basis of fraud

two district court orders. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Lux v. Spotsylvania County,

No. CA-97-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 1997). Appellants' motion to expedite is now moot and is dismissed for that reason. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info Forecast Maps





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: Grasshopper Forecast 2015headline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/map15.jpg
< Previous Map      Back to Outbreak Info      Next Map>
The data summarized in this map were furnished by the respective state, county, university and federal agencies using a variety of survey methods and analytical techniques.  Due to funding considerations, states may not have continuous survey coverage. This map was prepared by USDA-APHIS-PPQ in cooperation with CPHST.


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
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
 Children's Nutrition Research Center: Houston, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Business
               Career Opportunities
               Main
               Metabolic Research Unit
               Body Composition Lab
               Eating Behavior Laboratory
               Energy Metabolism Lab
               Plant Physiology Lab
               Analytical Core Labs
               Services
               IACUC Summaries


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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Optical Cable Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
hereby certifies, 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 and
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of April 30, 2009, and for the period then ended.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                          
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Neil D. Wilkin, Jr.                                                  
|                    |  |  |  | Neil D. Wilkin, Jr.                                                      
|                    |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### New York Community Bank, Respondent, v Parade Place, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[947 NYS2d 426]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered May 4, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against defendant Parade Place, LLC, under index No. 117349/08, and orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 5, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motions for summary judgment as against Parade Place and defendants Saadia Shapiro and Marla Shapiro under index Nos. 117348/08 and 117350/08, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 5520 (c), we deem Saadia Shapiro’s and *543Marla Shapiro’s appeals from the order under index No. 117350/08 appeals from the order under index No. 117348/08 as well.

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing that it was entitled to foreclosure, defendants contended that plaintiff did not give the requisite notice of default under the respective mortgages. However, their argument consists of the assertion that plaintiff failed to *allege*that it gave the notice and the conditional statement that “if’ it had not complied with the notice requirement, it could not foreclose. These assertions do not raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff gave the requisite notice. Moreover, defendants never argued before the motion court that they had not received notice or that there was anything whatsoever improper about the notice, and they may not raise these arguments for the first time on appeal.

Defendants also failed to raise issues of fact as to fraud in the inducement and unclean hands. In her affidavit, Saadia Shapiro makes conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions and does not actually state that plaintiff had agreed not to foreclose until the assemblage was complete or that plaintiff knew about, and acquiesced, to the secondary financing *(see Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y. v Lightning Park,*215 AD2d 246 [1995]; *Friesch-Groningsche Hypotheekbank Realty Credit Corp. v Ward Equities,*188 AD2d 397 [1992]). Furthermore, defendants appear to be impermissibly trying to use discovery as a “fishing expedition [because] they cannot set forth a reliable factual basis for their suspicions” *(see Orix Credit Alliance v Hable Co.,*256 AD2d 114, 116 [1998]).

The complaints’ description of the properties subject to foreclosure is sufficient since the respective parcels can be identified and located with reasonable certainty *(see Wilshire Credit Corp. v Y.R. Bldrs.,*262 AD2d 404 [1999]). The mortgaged properties are identified by their addresses and references to tax maps, and for two of the three properties, a metes and bounds description is given as well. Furthermore, defendants failed to provide any documentation, or citation to a public or other record, or any other evidence in admissible form, to support their assertion that all three properties are now a single tax lot. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31069(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         921
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2,960
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  259,056
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        69,134
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          68,943
<LOANS>                                      345,286
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (2,041)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               699,015
<DEPOSITS>                                   283,331
<SHORT-TERM>                                 231,416
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            5,242
<LONG-TERM>                                  129,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          47
<OTHER-SE>                                    49,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               699,015
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                6,307
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              4,986
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  30
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              11,323
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,272
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,730
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,593
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               104
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,208
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,208
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  2.39
<LOANS-NON>                                      741
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              (1,927)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     50
<RECOVERIES>                                      36
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             (2,041)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       (2,041)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

VELTIE PRUITT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 

as Servicer; US BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION; DOES 1 through 25, 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, Chief Judge: 

No. 6:14-cv-1989-AA 

0 R D E R 

This court issued an Order to Show Cause (doc. 8, dated May 

19, 2015) requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action was 

not being prosecuted or the court would dismiss sua sponte. 

Neither the court nor the opposing party has had any contact with 

Case 6:14-cv-01989-AA Document 12 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2
plaintiff following the Order to Show Cause. Defendant has no 

objection to dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice due to 

failure to prosecute. 

Dated this ~ day of June 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Case 6:14-cv-01989-AA Document 12 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
      32.1





Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of RC2 Corporation
      (the "Company") certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
      for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  April 30,
      2009 /s/ 
Curtis
      W.
      Stoelting


Curtis
      W.
      Stoelting


Chief
      Executive Officer








Dated:  April 30,
      2009 /s/ Peter
      A. Nicholson


Peter A. Nicholson


Chief Financial Officer





This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2014

To authorize the Attorney General to reschedule certain drugs that pose

an imminent danger to public safety, and to provide for the rescheduling

of the date-rape drug and the classification of a certain ‘‘club’’ drug.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 30, 1998

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To authorize the Attorney General to reschedule certain

drugs that pose an imminent danger to public safety,

and to provide for the rescheduling of the date-rape

drug and the classification of a certain ‘‘club’’ drug.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Drugs of the

5 1990’s Control Act’’.
2

•S 2014 IS

1 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY TO RESCHEDULE

2 CERTAIN DRUGS POSING IMMINENT DANGER

3 TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

4 Section 201(h) of the Controlled Substances Act (21

5 U.S.C. 811(h)) is amended—

6 (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the

7 following: ‘‘(1) If the Attorney General determines

8 that the scheduling of a substance, or the reschedul9 ing of a scheduled substance, on a temporary basis

10 is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the

11 public safety, the Attorney General may, by order

12 and without regard to the requirements of sub13 section (b) relating to the Secretary of Health and

14 Human Services, schedule the substance—

15 ‘‘(A) in schedule I if no exemption or approval

16 is in effect for the substance under section 355; or

17 ‘‘(B) in schedule II if the substance is not listed

18 in schedule I;’’; and

19 (2) in paragraph (2)—

20 (A) by inserting ‘‘or rescheduling’’ after

21 ‘‘scheduling’’ each place it appears; and

22 (B) by striking ‘‘for up to six months’’ and

23 inserting ‘‘until a final order becomes effec24 tive’’.
3

•S 2014 IS

1 SEC. 3. RESCHEDULING OF DATE-RAPE DRUG.

2 Notwithstanding section 201 or subsection (a) or (b)

3 of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21

4 U.S.C. 811; 812(a); 812(b)) respecting the scheduling of

5 controlled substances, the Attorney General shall, by

6 order, transfer flunitrazepam from schedule IV of such

7 Act to schedule I of such Act.

8 SEC. 4. CLASSIFICATION OF THE ‘‘CLUB’’ DRUG ‘‘SPECIAL

9 K’’.

10 Notwithstanding section 201 or subsection (a) or (b)

11 of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21

12 U.S.C. 811; 812(a); 812(b)) respecting the scheduling of

13 controlled substances, the Attorney General shall, by

14 order, add ketamine hydrochloride to schedule III of such

15 Act.

Æ
#### Fantroy *v.*The State.

*Assault With Intent to Murder.*

(Decided Feb. 26, 1910.

51 South. 931.)

*Homicide; Assault with Intent to Murder; Self*• *Defense.*— A charge asserting that if the defendant shot under a bona fide belief that his life was in danger, and he had under all the circumstances reasonable cause to believe he was in imminent .danger, it would be immaterial whether there was such danger or not, is a proper charge, and its refusal error.

(McClellan, J., dissents.)

Appeal from Barbour' Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. A. Evans.

Balkom Fantroy was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals.

Reversed.

The charge referred to is as follows: “The court charges the jury, if the defendant shot under the bona fide belief that his life was in danger, and he had under all circumstances reasonable cause to believe he was in imminent danger, it would be immaterial whether there was such actual danger or not.”

C. S. McDowdell, Jr., and Robert J. Lowe, for appellant.

The court erred in refusing the charge requested by *defendant.*— Kenfnedy *v. State,*140 Ala. 1.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

Counsel discuss the charge and insists that it was without error, but cites no authority.

SIMPSON, J.

The appellant was indicted for assault with intent to murder, and was convicted of assault and battery.

The only question raised in the record is as to the correctness of the action of the court in refusing to give *28the charge requested in writing by the defendant. The charge requested in writing by the defendant, and refused by the court, is an exact copy of a charge which has been held to be good by this *court.*—Kennedy *v. State,*140 Ala. 1, 6, 8, 37 South. 90. The court erred in refusing to give said charge.

The judgment of the court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and Andeeson, Mayfield, and Sayre, JJ., concur. McClellan, J., dissents. Evans, J., not sitting.
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

',675,&72)25(*21

-$60,1(0225(

3ODLQWLII

&9-(

YV

25'(5

1$1&<%(55<+,//

&RPPLVVLRQHURI6RFLDO6HFXULW\

'HIHQGDQW

%DVHGXSRQWKHVWLSXODWLRQRIWKHSDUWLHVLWLVKHUHE\25'(5('WKDWDWWRUQH\IHHVLQWKH

DPRXQWRIVKDOOEHDZDUGHGWR3ODLQWLIISXUVXDQWWRWKH(TXDO$FFHVVWR-XVWLFH$FW

86&7KHSDUWLHVDJUHHWKDWDWWRUQH\IHHVZLOOEHSDLGWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\GHSHQGHQW

XSRQYHULILFDWLRQWKDW3ODLQWLIIKDVQRGHEWZKLFKTXDOLILHVIRURIIVHWDJDLQVWWKHDZDUGHGIHHV

SXUVXDQWWRWKH7UHDVXU\2IIVHW3URJUDPDVGLVFXVVHGLQ$VWUXHY5DWOLII6&W

,I3ODLQWLIIKDVQRVXFKGHEWWKHQWKHFKHFNVKDOOEHPDGHRXWWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\DQG

PDLOHGWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\¶VRIILFHDVIROORZV0HUULOO6FKQHLGHU32%R[3RUWODQG

25,I3ODLQWLIIKDVDGHEWWKHQWKHFKHFNIRUDQ\UHPDLQLQJIXQGVDIWHURIIVHWRIWKHGHEW

VKDOOEHPDGHWR3ODLQWLIIDQGPDLOHGWR3ODLQWLII
VDWWRUQH\
VRIILFHDWWKHDGGUHVVVWDWHGDERYH

'$7('WKLVBBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

-RKQ-HOGHUNV

8QLWHG6WDWHV0DJLVWUDWH-XGJH

9th May

/s/ John Jelderks