alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Peter L. Vosotas, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nicholas Financial, Inc.;  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 statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith 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 respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: November 10, 2005       /s/ Peter L. Vosotas     Peter L. Vosotas    President and Chief Executive Officer    **(**Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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)


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.


Date:       May 14, 2004            By  /s/ Buckner Woodford
                                    Buckner Woodford
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer

Date:       May 14, 2004            By  /s/ Gregory J. Dawson
                                    Gregory J. Dawson
                                    Chief Financial Officer



1
Lexlibrary/197885.1
#### Mario Aburto, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 514]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered June 27, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the violation proximately caused his injuries *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City,*1 NY3d 280, 286 [2003]; *Williams v 520 Madison Partnership,*38 AD3d 464, 464-465 [2007]). Indeed, plaintiffs 50-h testimony and his coworker’s affidavit showed that a scaffold suddenly collapsed under him while he was attempting to dismantle it at his foreman’s instructions. There were no harnesses, lanyards, safety lines, or similar safety devices available for use to prevent his fall *(see Romanczuk v Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co.,*72 AD3d 592, 592-593 [2010]; *Pritchard v Murray Walter, Inc.,*157 AD2d 1012, 1013 [1990]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted an affidavit from a superintendent for plaintiffs employer who averred that he saw plaintiff “violently and forcefully shaking” one of the rails of the scaffold when dismantling it, and that such conduct caused the scaffold’s side frame to give way, permitting the platform to fall through the frame. The superintendent also stated that the scaffold was equipped with toe boards and railings. The record reveals that although such safety devices could prevent workers from falling off the edge of a scaffold, they are insufficient to prevent workers from falling through a collapsing scaffold. Further, where, as here, it has been shown that inadequate devices proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries, any negligence on plaintiff’s part does not preclude partial summary judgment in his favor *(see*
      *641
      *Blake,*1 NY3d at 286; *Romanczuk,*72 AD3d at 592-593; *Torres v Monroe Coll.,*12 AD3d 261, 262 [2004]).

We also find that plaintiffs motion is not premature. Defendants have not shown, or even argued, that other facts essential to justify opposition to the motion might exist but could not be stated without additional discovery *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig.,*89 AD3d 426, 428 [2011]; *Trainer v City of New York,*41 AD3d 202 [2007]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unpreserved or unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31735(U).]
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 Polymer Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR HomepageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Plant Polymer Research People







Jessica J Bent    Program Support Assistant (Office Automation) Jessica Bent is the Program Support Assistant for the Plant Polymer Research unit.


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
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KLAYTON ANDERSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-1042-AC (Lead)

 3:15-cv-1043-AC (Associated)

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on November 30, 2016. Judge Acosta recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for 

attorney’s fees be granted and Plaintiff’s bill of costs be granted in part. No party has filed 

objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Case 3:15-cv-01042-AC Document 64 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], 

intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are 

filed.”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding 

that the court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is 

made, “but not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s 

Findings and Recommendation. (ECF 62 in Case No. 3:15-cv-1042-AC and ECF 59 in Case No. 

3:15-cv-1043-AC). Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF 58 in Case No. 15-1042- and 

ECF 55 in Case No. 15-1043) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount 

of $3,108.30. Plaintiff’s cost bill (ECF 57 in 15-1042 and ECF 54 in 15-1043) is GRANTED IN 

PART. Plaintiff is awarded $1,128 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01042-AC Document 64 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TB Wood's Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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 continued in the report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

May 10, 2005   /s/William T. Fejes    President and Chief Executive Officer
               -------------------
               William T. Fejes

May 10, 2005   /s/Joseph C. Horvath   Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
               --------------------
               Joseph C. Horvath

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TB Wood's Corporation and will be retained by TB Wood's Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0395 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0395

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Turkey on the participation of Turkey in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (COM(2006)0257 - C6-0320/2006 - 2006/0089(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 308 E , 16/12/2006 P. 0081 - 0081 *

P6_TA(2006)0395

EC-Turkey Agreement: participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Turkey on the participation of Turkey in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (COM(2006)0257 — C6-0320/2006 — 2006/0089(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0257) [1],

- having regard to the draft agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Turkey concerning the participation of the Republic of Turkey in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction,

- having regard to Articles 152 and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0320/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0327/2006),

1. Approves conclusion of the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of Turkey.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward Alan GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-30295.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*722Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 18, 2007.

Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Bruce F. Miyake, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert W. Goldsmith, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Alan Garcia appeals from his 66-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Assuming *arguendo,*that this case is properly before us, we reject Garcia’s contention that the district court erred in sentencing him above the Guidelines range. Garcia’s sentence was within a range stipulated to by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and, as such, need not comport with the Guidelines. *See United States v. Pacheco-Navarette,*432 F.3d 967, 970 (9th Cir.2005) (‘We accept this proposition explicitly: as the Guidelines are advisory only, there can be no reasonable argument that the court does not have the authority to accept a stipulated sentence that does not comport with them.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, the record indicates that the district court correctly used the Guidelines range as a “starting point,” *United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1280 (9th Cir.2006), and properly considered and applied the various sentencing considerations articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), *see United States v. Knows His Gun,*438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006). We conclude that the sentence imposed in light of those factors was not unreasonable. *See United States v. Mohamed,*459 F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            7701
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             324
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  4925
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      68855
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           16564
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             17023
<LOANS>                                         162512
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  271566
<DEPOSITS>                                      227557
<SHORT-TERM>                                      5962
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2094
<LONG-TERM>                                      11218
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6130
<OTHER-SE>                                       18605
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  271566
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3542
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1321
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   112
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4975
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2460
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2515
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      106
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   3
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1030
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1030
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       789
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.95
<LOANS-NON>                                         93
<LOANS-PAST>                                       287
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   174
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2101
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       27
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2194
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2194
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  515,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                   325,112
<INVENTORY>                                  1,042,098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,333,918
<PP&E>                                       1,002,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                 577,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,806,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,421,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,512
<OTHER-SE>                                   (663,209)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,806,347
<SALES>                                         69,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,344
<CGS>                                           37,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (152,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (152,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (152,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>