alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31 (a)
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Richard H. SmithChief Executive Officer 50
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.                  

###### Civil Rights Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Georgia Advisory Committee will convene at 10 a.m. (EST) and adjourn at 11 a.m. (EST) on Friday, September 9, 2005. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Committee's work on its project, Unitary Status of School Districts in Georgia. 

This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-497-7708, conference contact name Peter Minarik. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and contact name, Peter Minarik. 

To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Southern Regional Office, (404) 562-7000 (TDD/TTY 404-562-7004), by Tuesday, September 6, 2005. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, August 18, 2005. 

Ivy Davis, 

Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 05-17153 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0480

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VALORIE SUE CHURMAGE,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Purs uant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Val o rie Sue C hurmage, to all counsel of r ecord , and to the Hono rable Amy Eddy , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 29 2020

07/29/2020
Case Number: DA 19-0480
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3291 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3291

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain income and 
   gains relating to fuels as qualifying income for publicly traded 
                             partnerships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 21 (legislative day, July 17), 2008

 Mr. Harkin (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain income and 
   gains relating to fuels as qualifying income for publicly traded 
                             partnerships.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Biofuels Pipeline Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO FUELS TREATED AS 
              QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 7704(d)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualifying income) is amended 
by inserting ``, or the transportation, storage, or marketing of any 
fuel which meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel 
additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency under 
section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545)'' after ``timber)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 
ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund VIII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the
General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                                       
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                 
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer May 13, 2009
| |  |                                                       



| |  |                                                         
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                 
| |  | Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer May 13, 2009
#### Dorothy Allen, Respondent, v James O. Braxton, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 179]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Peter J. Notaro, J.), entered October 18, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied that part of the motion of defendant James O. Braxton seeking an adjournment of the trial and his subsequent motion to strike the note of issue.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988 [1988]; *Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts,*63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of American Skiing Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending July 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark J. Miller, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(3)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:  March 7, 2003 |                                            |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                            |
|                      | By:  /s/ Mark J. Miller                    |   |
|                      | Mar k J. Miller                                 |
|                      | Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer |
|                      | (Principal Financial  Officer)                  |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. James Donald KING.

No. 204A99-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for King.

Diane Reeves, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of March 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, John D. Reedy, 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 2005 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 8, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of American Access Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, I, Joseph F. McGuire, Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2006, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American Access Technologies, Inc.

Date: March 8, 2007



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph F. McGuire                           
|Joseph F. McGuire                               
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
Exhibit










Exhibit 10.6




Description of Compensation Arrangements for Independent Directors




Effective June 1, 2016, which will be the start of the Board’s annual pay cycle, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) will compensate its independent directors as follows:


Basic Annual Retainer.  All independent directors will receive a basic annual retainer of $110,000. 
 
Annual Stock Grant.  On June 1 of each year, all independent directors will receive an annual grant of the Company’s common stock with a market value of $160,000 on the grant date.
 
Supplemental Annual Retainers for Audit and Compensation Committee Chairs.  The chairs of the Board’s audit and compensation committees will each receive a supplemental annual retainer of $25,000.


Supplemental Annual Retainers for Committee Chairs.  The chairs of the Board’s finance, directors and governance and corporate responsibility committees will each receive a supplemental annual retainer of $15,000.
 
Supplemental Annual Retainer for Non-Executive Chairman.  The Board’s independent chairman will receive a supplemental annual retainer of $200,000. 


Under the terms of the Company’s Directors’ Stock Compensation Plan, each director may elect to receive his or her basic annual retainer and any supplemental annual retainer in cash, common stock or a combination thereof.
RANDEL EX REL. FORREST v. BEACHAM.

No. COA07-348.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Beauford (02CVS561).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
In re C.T. & B.T.

No. 175A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 19, 2007.

Elizabeth Gurnee, Fayetteville, for Cumberland County DSS.

Beth Hall, for Guardian ad Litem.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of April 2007 by Respondent (Father) to Amend Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of April 2007."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GREGORY LINDEL BURNS JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 375 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Mark J. ARMSTRONG, Employee, Plaintiff v. W.R. GRACE & CO., Employer. Continental Casualty Company, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 82P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Ben E. Roney, Jr., for Mark J. Armstrong.

Michael W. Ballance, Raleigh, for W.R. Grace & Co., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 7th day of March 2006 by Defendants 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,275
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,807
<PP&E>                                         213,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 811,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,586
<BONDS>                                        570,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   811,548
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,827
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    473
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                473
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
IN RE D.J.

No. COA06-1696.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from New Hanover (06J242, 06J243, 06J244, 06J245).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
#### Suffolk County Water Authority, Respondent, v Village of Greenport, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 767]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated May 3, 2004, which, inter alia, denied its motion for summary judgment and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment to recover one half of the revenues received under the September 1, 2001, renewal of a certain AT&T lease, after reimbursement of attendant costs, if any.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*948The parties do not contend that their written contract was incomplete and that there was no meeting of the minds. Rather, they disagree as to what constitutes the plain meaning of their written contract. Whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law for the courts to be determined in examining the four corners of the writing, not outside sources *(see Kass v Kass,*91 NY2d 554, 566 [1998]). The determination of the Supreme Court in the plaintiffs favor is consistent with the plain meaning of the written agreement and basic principles of contract construction that an interpretation which renders language in the contract superfluous is unsupportable *(see Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of State of N.Y. v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y.,*94 NY2d 398, 404 [2000]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.