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

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Gregg A. Ostrander, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Michael Foods, Inc.;

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 officer 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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated 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 disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first
fiscal quarter of 2006 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 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 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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 11, 2006



/s/ Gregg A. OstranderGregg A. OstranderChairman and Chief Executive Officer
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 Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald Porter Strong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



Dated: October 15, 2004



/s/    GERALD PORTER
STRONGGerald Porter Strong Chief Executive Officer and President of Teleglobe International Holdings
Ltd




This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
McGEE v. McGEE.

No. COA05-1290.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Rutherford (00CVD686).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed in part, Reversed and remanded in part.
Frank H. CHRISTENSEN v. TIDEWATER FIBRE CORP.

No. 552P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Thomas H. Stark, Chapel Hill, W. Russell Congleton, for Frank H. Christensen.

*784Joel M. Craig, Erin M. Locklear, Durham, for Tidewater Fibre Corp.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of September 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's (NSB) Executive Committee hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# TIME AND DATE: 

Monday, July 11, 2022, from 12:30-1:30 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by video conference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda of the teleconference is: Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; Approval of Executive Committee Minutes of April 5, 2022; and Discuss issues and topics for an agenda of the NSB meeting scheduled for August 3-4, 2022.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Nirmala Kannankutty, (                        *nkannank@nsf.gov*), 703/292-8000. Members of the public can observe this meeting through a You Tube livestream. Access the livestream at:                         *https://www.youtube.com/​?v=​gicfB6iPjpU.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2022-14752 Filed 7-7-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the quarter ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas E. Sloan, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report is in full compliances 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 operation of the Company.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Douglas E. Sloan           
|Douglas E. Sloan               
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
|October 4, 2006
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Rivera, Eugenio, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered June 18, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). As limited by the brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered June 18, 2018 as denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affirmation from the attorney who was to perform the EUOs, which affirmation was sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (<i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Moreover, a review of the record establishes that the Civil Court <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>correctly determined that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 6, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
FOSTER-LONG v. DURHAM COUNTY.

No. COA05-1287.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #101235).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                               13,186,487
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         1,422,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     15,170,062
<PP&E>                                                               77,916,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        3,266,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      108,683,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 6,130,375
<BONDS>                                                              60,582,883
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 105
<COMMON>                                                                118,833
<OTHER-SE>                                                           40,077,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        108,683,792
<SALES>                                                              27,302,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     29,056,825
<CGS>                                                                11,537,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        24,088,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     (1,137,506)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    3,565,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       2,540,844
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            704,798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   1,836,046
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          136,186
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          1,103,350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                               .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               .13
        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5696 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5696

To make a technical correction to section 3009 of the Deficit Reduction 
                              Act of 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2008

   Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Mr. Walden of Oregon, and Mr. Boucher) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make a technical correction to section 3009 of the Deficit Reduction 
                              Act of 2005.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENTS FROM THE DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION AND 
              PUBLIC SAFETY FUND.

    Section 3009(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 
109-171) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``fiscal year 2009'' and inserting ``fiscal 
        years 2009 through 2012''; and
            (2) by striking ``no earlier than October 1, 2010'' and 
        inserting ``on or after February 18, 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. BUCHANAN.

No. COA04-1270.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 5, 2005.

Certification Date July 25, 2005.

Appeal from the Swain (01CR153).

Case without published opinion. Reversed.
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 CPI International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, O. Joe Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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/ O. JOE CALDARELLIO. Joe CaldarelliChief Executive OfficerAugust 11, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6113** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TONY GLENN AVANT , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:02

- cr - 00133

- H

- 1; 5:12

- cv - 00026

- H )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tony Glenn Avant, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tony Glenn Avant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006 ) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484

- 85 (2000)
. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Avant has n ot made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Gregg A. Ostrander, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Michael Foods, Inc.; 

 

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, inlight 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 financialcondition, 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’ssecond fiscal quarter of 2004 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’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 financialreporting which are reasonably 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 or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 3, 2004
AZALEA GARDEN BOARD & CARE, INC. v. Faiger M. BLACKWELL and Blackwell & Associates Management, Inc.

No. 219P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 19, 2006.

Joe Biesecker, Lexington, for Azalea Garden Board & Care, Inc.

Amiel Rossabi, Emily J. Meister, Greensboro, for Blackwell.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of April 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th day of July 2006."
88 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

OHIO 

#18 #37 1.8% $844 #20 #12 #11

$9.9 B SPENT IN 1.3% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $6.3 B CONTRACT 61,589 NUMBER OF $3.6 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 1% Research and

Development: 15%

Service: 27%

Supplies and

Equipment: 58%

By Service 

Army

15%

Navy/Marines

15%

Air Force

39%

Other Defense

30%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 11% Reserve: 18%

National 

Civilian: 45% Guard: 26%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

31%

Navy/Marines

5%

Air Force

49%

Other Defense

15%

Top Defense Contractors 

General Electric

BAE Systems

CFM International

Federal Equipment Co.

University of Dayton

L3Harris Technologies

Raytheon Technologies

Frontier Technology, Inc.

Battelle Memorial Institute

Wornick

(M = millions)

$757.5 M

$334.7 M

$301.9 M

$184.7 M

$170.5 M

$166.5 M

$146.4 M

$128.4 M

$120.1 M

$113.5 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$8.0

$6.2 $6.3 $5.8

$4.6 $4.8

FY14

$3.9 $3.9

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$3.6 BILLION 61,589

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Greene 5,385 15,038 104 

Franklin 378 7,073 3,897

Cuyahoga 238 2,476 408 

Clark ND 319 1,636

Trumbull 30 58 380 

Hamilton 135 266 570 

Richland ND 282 1,484

Stark 32 29 689

Summit ND 188 443 

Fulton ND 0 1,027

Reserve Total

2,508 23,035

2,993 14,341

250 3,372

ND ND 

1,432 1,900

897 1,868

0 ND 

864 1,614

868 ND 

0 ND 
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Fulton

Richland

Clark

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Cuyahoga

Miami Licking

Montgomery

Butler

Hamilton

Clermont

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Greene

Hamilton

Montgomery

Franklin

Butler

Cuyahoga

Licking

Clermont

Miami

Allen

(M = millions, B = billions)

$1.6 B

$901.1 M

$900.9 M 

$735.0 M

$398.5 M

$322.2 M

$214.5 M

$175.1 M

$105.2 M

$81.6 M

Greene

Franklin

Cuyahoga

Hamilton

Clark

Richland

Montgomery

Fulton

Trumbull

Summit

$2.0 B

$798.7 M 

$207.5 M

$73.4 M

$65.5 M

$55.6 M

$43.7 M

$41.8 M

$41.5 M

$40.2 M

Allen

Greene

Franklin

Cuyahoga

Franklin

Greene

Montgomery

Hamilton

Summit

Trumbull

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 8

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

9

FISCAL YEAR 2018 OHIO