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



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jonathan V. Diamond, Chief Executive Officer of ARTISTdirect, Inc., certify
that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ARTISTdirect, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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 we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the Evaluation Date); and c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date; 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls;
and 6. The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: May 13, 2004 /s/ Jonathan V. DiamondJonathan V. DiamondChief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel International Epidemiological Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IEDEA).                    

*Date:*                         December 5-7, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         7 p.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John A. Bogdan, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-2550,                         *jbogdan@niaid,nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 9, 2005.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-23190 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

-againstJAMES CUTLER, 

Defendant.

No. 02-CR-441 (LAP)

ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

The Court is in receipt of the Government’s letter (dkt. 

no. 428) opposing the relief requested in Mr. Cutler’s letters 

dated January 7, 2018 (dkt. no. 418) and November 13, 2020 (dkt. 

no. 426). Mr. Cutler may file a reply by no later than January 

22, 2021. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2020

New York, New York

__________________________________

LORETTA A. PRESKA

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00441-LAP Document 429 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, As Adopted**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

 

**In connection with the Annual Report of Whitney Information Network,Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Russell A. Whitney, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

Dated:  June 2, 2004

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   | /s/Russell  A. Whitney          |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   | Name:  Russell A. Whitney       |   |
|   |   |   |   |   | Title: Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.2


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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Beverly
A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the Company.
   /s/
      Beverly A. CummingsChief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      26,  2009
Exhibit 32

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 Westar Energy, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, William B. Moore, in my capacity as Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark A. Ruelle, in my capacity as
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                     
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | August 6, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William B. Moore                                                
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | William B. Moore Director, President and Chief Executive Officer    
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | August 6, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark A. Ruelle                                                  
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Mark A. Ruelle, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 46 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 46 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 46 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 8 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 8 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
`Exhibit 32(a)

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of
  Decorize, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual
  Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully
  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
  Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
  results of operations of the Company.



/s/ James K. Parsons
-----------------------------------------
James K. Parsons
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 5, 2003`
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 11 Filed 12/04/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 11 Filed 12/04/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 11 Filed 12/04/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 11 Filed 12/04/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### STATE v. LLOYD WAYNE SHULL.

(Filed 28 September, 1966.)

Rape § 18—

The State’s evidence in this case held sufficient to support the verdict of guilt of assault with intent to commit rape.

Appeal by defendant from *Anglin, J.,*28 March 1966 Regular Session of Gaston Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with the felony of rape of a female person, Maria Hambright, and drawn in the language of G.S. 14-21. The solicitor placed defendant on trial for assault with intent to commit rape, or assault on a female, as the evidence might warrant. Defendant pleaded not guilty. From a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to commit rape, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.*

*Lewis Bulwinkle for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented by this appeal is: Did the court err in refusing to grant defendant’s motions for judgment as of nonsuit at the conclusion of the State’s evidence and at the conclusion of all evidence?

*210The State’s evidence tends to show the following facts: On 22 February 1966, at about 8:30 P.M., defendant, pretending he was going to take prosecutrix to a mill to inquire about employment, induced her to ride with him. Instead, he parked his car, announced his intentions, and put his hands under her clothing. Prosecutrix broke away and ran in the yard of a house. Defendant followed and promised to take her home. However, he once more stopped the car and advanced on her. She again managed to get out of the car. Defendant pursued and caught her, threw her on a ditch bank, and pulled off part of her clothes. He then pushed her in the back seat of the car, held her down so she could not breathe, and finally accomplished his purpose.

In a criminal case, “On motion for nonsuit, it is a. question of law for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the evidence adduced, when considered in its light most favorable to the State, is of sufficient probative force to justify the jury in drawing the affirmative inference of guilt.” *State v. Needham,*235 N.C. 555, 71 S.E. 2d 29.

“To convict a defendant on the charge of an assault with intent to commit rape the State must prove not only an assault but that defendant intended to gratify his passion on the person of the woman, and that he intended to do so, at all events, notwithstanding any resistance on her part. ... It is not necessary to complete the offense that the defendant retain the intent throughout the assault, but if he, at any time during the assault, have an intent to gratify his passion upon the woman, notwithstanding any resistance on her part, the defendant would be guilty of the offense. . . . Intent is an attitude or emotion of the mind and is seldom, if ever, susceptible of proof by direct evidence, it must ordinarily be proven by circumstantial evidence, *i. e.,*by facts and circumstances from which it may be inferred.” *State v. Gammons,*260 N.C. 753, 133 S.E. 2d 649, and cases cited.

Defendant’s motions for judgment as of nonsuit were properly overruled.

Affirmed.
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 346PC

Case below: 47 N.C. App. 223

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 October 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 October 1980.
#### North Chicago St. R. R. Co. v. Caroline Boyd.

1. *Negligence—Presumption as to—Collision of*Cars.—Without any proof of the cause, a jury may justly find that a collision, on the same track, of two cars or trains of a passenger carrier, is due to the negligence of the carrier.

2. *Evidence—To be Taleen as True Against the Party Offering*it.— Where a witness for the company testified that a collision was caused by too much oil on the drum of the brake, causing it to slip, *it was held that*the jury, without a knowledge of the mechanism enabling them to judge whether the reason given was a good one, were justified in accepting it, as true against the company.

Memorandum.-—Action for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.

Opinion filed February 12, 1895.

Edmund Furthmann & Van Yechten Feeder, attorneys for appellant.

Rosenthal, J£urz *&*IIirsciil, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The track of the appellant goes under the Chicago river at La Salle street through a tunnel. The appellee, having-taken passage on a north bound car, which was stopped before it had arrived at the bottom of the tunnel by other cars on the track ahead of it, was scared by the approach of other cars behind, which were sliding down the grade at something more than ordinary speed at which cars run. She stood up, and when the front advancing car struck the one she was in, she says she was thrown down and badly hurt. The witness for the appellant who set the brake on one of the cars which were sliding, says, “ the reason the brakes did not work *(i. e.,*did not stop the cars) was on account of the- drum of the brake having too much oil on it, which caused it to slip.”

Without a knowledge of the mechanism enabling them to *536judge whether the reason given by the witness was a good one, the jury were justified in accepting it, being proved by the appellant, as true against it; and being true, it was a cause for which the appellant was responsible. And without any proof of the cause the jury might justly find that a collision, on the same track, of two cars or trains of a passenger carrier, is due to negligence of the carrier. Lavis v. Wisconsin Central R. R., 54 Ill. App. 636, where many cases are cited.

An instruction given for the appellee as to burden of proof, substantially like the one approved by the Supreme Court in Galena & Chicago Union R. R. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509, is very slightly criticised by the appellant, and the rest of its brief is devoted to a demonstration that “ the evidence fails to show either negligence on the part of the defendant, or injury directly resulting to the plaintiff; ” which were matters for the jury upon the evidence, and their verdict seems a very fair one.

When a woman gets but $2,500 from a railroad for injuries by a collision while a passenger, the railroad has good luck. The judgment is affirmed.
Case 1:06-cv-15138-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Intermagnetics General Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending May 29, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Glenn H. Epstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. I 1350, as adopted pursuant to I 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

       (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 result of operations
             of the Company.

/s/ Glenn H. Epstein
------------------------------------
Glenn H. Epstein
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2005

*   These certifications are being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to
the liability of that Section. These certifications shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
#### JONES v. STONE

No. 272 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 502.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
Case 1:06-cv-15054-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.2 Section 302 Certifications**I, George DeCourcy, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the X-Change Corporation,     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: August 13, 2007/s/ George DeCourcy