alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1** **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 Annual Report of First Place Financial Corp. (“First Place”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven R. Lewis, President and Chief Executive Officer of First Place, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 financial condition and result of operations of First Place.  September 30, 2002   By: /S/    STEVEN R.LEWIS          **Steven R. Lewis****President andChief Executive Officer**
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                              BULL RUN CORPORATION

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                (Dollars in thousands, except amounts per share)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                             Years Ended December 31
                                                                   1995             1994              1993
                                                                   ----             ----              ----
<S>                                                            <C>            <C>             <C>   

Primary:
     Net income (loss)....................................     $    723         $    216           $   180
                                                                  =====            =====             =====
Primary shares:
     Weighted average number of shares outstanding.........      22,127           13,350            12,377

     Assuming exercise of options ........................        1,109              184               126
                                                               --------         --------          --------

     Weighted average number of shares outstanding,
     as adjusted..........................................       23,236           13,534            12,503
                                                                  =====            =====             =====
Primary earnings per share:
     Net income (loss)....................................     $    .03         $    .02           $   .01




Assuming full dilution:
     Net income (loss)....................................     $    723         $    216           $   180
                                                                  =====            =====             =====
Fully diluted shares:
     Weighted average number of shares outstanding.......        22,127           13,350            12,377

     Assuming exercise of options.........................        1,151              197               145
                                                                -------         --------         ---------

     Weighted average number of shares outstanding,
     as adjusted..........................................       23,278           13,547            12,522
                                                                  =====            =====             =====
Fully diluted earnings per share:
     Net income (loss)....................................      $   .03          $   .02           $   .01
</TABLE>


                                                    15

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.13

COMPENSATION TO OUTSIDE DIRECTORS

|                                                                                      |  | 2004 |        | 2005
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ------ | ----
|Annual Retainer Fee:                                                                  |  | $    | 10,000 |     
|Annual Fee for Committee Chairmanships:                                               |  |      |       |     
|Attendance for Board Meetings (includes telephonic attendance):                       |  | $    | 2,500  |     
|Attendance by Committee Member at Committee Meeting (includes telephonic attendance): |  | $    | 1,000  |     

All
reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses, which are incurred in connection with Board and Committee meetings will be reimbursed.

In
addition, the Outside Directors will receive stock grants in the future.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1




SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alfred M. Schiffrin, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Renewable
Assets, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company;

         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; and

         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
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this report.

         4.       I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) for the Company and have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedure, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 changes in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the company's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         5.       I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                  (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which hare reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Company'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 Company's
internal control over financial reporting.

                                    /s/ ALFRED M. SCHIFFRIN
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Alfred M. Schiffrin
                                    Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

September 14, 2005

                                     - 12 -
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Rock Island, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1177

Issued: August 20, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On July 28, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a January 25, 2021 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-1177.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the January 25, 2021 decision was July 24, 2021. As this fell 

on a Saturday, appellant had until Monday, July 26, 2021 to file the appeal.3 As appellant did 

not file an appeal with the Board until July 28, 2021, more than 180 days after the January 25,

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1177 is untimely 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).

3

Id. at § 501.3(f)(2).
2

filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason 

to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1177 is dismissed.

Issued: August 20, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
No. 76-5476.

#### Clyne *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
In the MATTER OF: S.M.C.

No. COA17-452

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 33-73568 for Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account One on Form N-4.

                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
April 8, 2002
#### PAUL COOK, Appellant, *v.*THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 4025

February 17, 1958.

321 P.2d 587

*Samuel T. Bull,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Grant Satoyer,*District Attorney, Elko County, *Joseph 0. McDaniel,*Deputy District Attorney, Elko County, *52and *Harvey Dickerson,*Attorney General, of Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Defendant was charged with a gross misdemeanor in that he “did willfully and unlawfully use and have on his person a cheating or thieving device to facilitate removing part of the contents of a slot machine.” In his appeal from judgment of conviction, he asserts that the proof was fatally defective in not showing that the slot machine in question was a *licensed*slot machine; that the legislature must have intended so to provide because NRS 465.080 making any of sundry cheating practices a gross misdemeanor refers from time to time to *licensed gambling games.*

Appellant also contends that the proof was fatally lacking in showing that the device in appellant’s possession could actually facilitate the removal of the contents of a slot machine. We do not reach these questions. The sole error assigned is refusal of the trial court to give defendant’s requested instruction to the jury as follows: “I instruct you to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of the fact that the State has failed to make out a prima facie case against the defendant.”

It was not error to refuse such instruction. The proposed instruction is contrary to the provisions of NRS 175.375: “If at any time after the evidence on either side is closed, the court deem the same insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may advise the jury to acquit the defendant. But the jury shall not be bound by such advice, nor must the court for any cause prevent the *53jury from giving a verdict, [with certain exceptions not here applicable] * * State v. Corinblit, 72 Nev. 202, 298 P.2d 470.

Affirmed.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 0 418 V

UNPUBLISHED

DENISE SUMMER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: August 19, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) ; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIR VA).

Bridget Canda ce M

cCullough, M uller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On Apr il 13 , 2020, Denise Summer filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine

administrati on (“SIRVA”) as a result of a influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October

3 , 2018 . Petition at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office

of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic

Government Services). This means the opinion will be available to anyone with access to the internet.

In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identif y and move to redact medical or

other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon

review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public

acces s.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012).2

On August 19, 2021

, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 31) at

1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for

SIRVA

. Id. at 6.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6845** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.
TERRENCE MOODY , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00074

- WDQ

- 9 )

Submitted : July 29, 2010 Decided: August 12, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Terrence Mo ody, Appellant Pro Se. Kwame Jangha Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terrence Moody appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Moody , No. 1:06

- cr - 00074

- WDQ

- 9 (D. Md. May 21, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62012) pertaining to the CompuCredit Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-78409) pertaining to the CompuCredit CorporationAmended and Restated 1998 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92889) pertaining to the CompuCredit Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117959)pertaining to the CompuCredit 2003 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 117960) pertaining to the CompuCredit 2004 Restricted Stock Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-115188)pertaining to common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-127418) pertaining to CompuCredit Corporation 3.625% Convertible Senior Notes due 2025, in the Registration Statement(Form S-3 No. 333-132339) pertaining to CompuCredit Corporation 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2035, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-135102) pertaining to common stock issued upon exercise of warrants ofour report dated February 27, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CompuCredit Corporation and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 28, 2007
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-76423 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Seven on Form N-4.


Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
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 Diatect International Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
      Andrus, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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.











December
                19, 2007
            /s/
                David
                AndrusDavid
                S. AndrusPrincipal
                Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Financial Officer
### 252aonorablsGeorge H. Shsc>ard,Page 2

above as eup@mental mintsname shall revert to the rgenerel

rovenua fund ot this State." This Departmentruled in Opinion Fo. O-733 that the Legislature

was unauthorized

to appropriate

money for the payment of dtflaisnoy warrants issued by the Mvernor In the amount of $75,000 for tha purpose of ereoting 8 bulldin on the campus or John Tarleton College.

In your letter you sug>ly the sdditlonal~~information that the oonstruatlonthat wan placed on the aempus of John Tarleton Collegewas not a new bUilding,but wau rather an additionalunit to the Solence BuildinS of aald sohool.

In light of this additionallnfoxmatlonyou have rurniahea, we have again reoonelderedthe original proposition as to tha validity or the daflolenoy warrants and have reaohed the oonoluslonthat In aooordenoo with our opinion Ro. O-733, the Legislature was unautharlzedto appropriate money for the payment of euoh ddlolsnoy warrant8 imaued ln this oasb. ft 5s the opinion of thle Department that the Comptrolleror Pub150 Aooount8 should not ooneider those sum8 ao appropristsdin arrivingat the amount of ourrent appropriationsset up a¬ the general revermtr fund. Youra very truly ATTORRRYQRNZRALOFTRXAS 

# BY Aselstunt BG~BBB APPROVE~JUN21, 1940
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTHONY R. BATEMAN

No. 7312SC147

(Filed 28 February 1973)

Appeal by defendant from *Clark, Judge,*at the 21 September 1972 Criminal Session of Cumberland Superior Court.

By indictment proper in *form*defendant was charged with armed robbery to which charge he pleaded not guilty. A jury found him guilty as charged and from judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 15 nor more than 25 years, to be credited with 74 days confinement pending trial, he appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Ralph Moody, Special Counsel, for the State.*

*Kenneth A. Glusman, Assistant Public Defender Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant’s counsel concedes that although he has carefully examined the record in this case he has been unable to find prejudicial error. We too have reviewed the record and conclude that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
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 Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 25, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey P. Ansell, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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) 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.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                          
|----- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: |  | August 8, 2006                           
|      | 
|      |  | /s/JEFFREY P. ANSELL                     
|      |  | Jeffrey P. Ansell Chief Executive
Officer