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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

I, John Bristow, Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell Diamonds
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of
the Company for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2009 (the Annual Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| | By:    | /s/ J.
      Bristow   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | John Bristow           
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | July 6, 2010           

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Perry W. Premdas, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Celanese AG;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The company'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 company 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
            company, 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 company'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 company's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
            covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
            reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

5.    The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design
            or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
            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.

Date:  March 17, 2004

  By: /s/ PERRY W. PREMDAS
------------------------------------
Perry W. Premdas
Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03461-JFK Document 7 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03461-JFK Document 7 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00365-AKH Document 16 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,056
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,053
<INVENTORY>                                      9,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,533
<PP&E>                                          39,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,205
<BONDS>                                          6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           197
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,524
<SALES>                                         45,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,268
<CGS>                                           18,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (74)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,761
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,767
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,767
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74
        

</TABLE>
#### SMITH v. DICKINSON

No. 279P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 814.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2035 

To require the Transportation Security Administration to develop a strategic 

plan to expand eligibility for the PreCheck Program to individuals with 

Transportation Worker Identification Credentials or Hazardous Materials 

Endorsements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Transportation Security Administration to 

develop a strategic plan to expand eligibility for the 

PreCheck Program to individuals with Transportation 

Worker Identification Credentials or Hazardous Materials Endorsements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘TSA Credential and 

5 Endorsement Harmonization Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2035 IS

1 SEC. 2. STRATEGIC PLAN TO EXPAND PRECHECK PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

5 the Transportation Security Administration shall develop 

6 a strategic plan to expand eligibility for the PreCheck Pro7 gram under section 44919 of title 49, United States Code, 

8 to individuals who have— 

9 (1) a Transportation Worker Identification Cre10 dential issued under section 70105 of title 46, 

11 United States Code; or 

12 (2) a Hazardous Materials Endorsement under 

13 the Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat As14 sessment Program on the State-issued commercial 

15 driver’s license of the individual. 

16 (b) ELEMENTS.—In developing the strategic plan re17 quired by subsection (a), the Administrator shall ensure 

18 that the plan— 

19 (1) allows individuals described in subsection 

20 (a) to opt in to the PreCheck Program; and 

21 (2) provides the Transportation Security Ad22 ministration with the discretion— 

23 (A) to determine whether an individual de24 scribed in subsection (a) meets the eligibility re25 quirements for the Program; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2035 IS

1 (B) to establish alternative fee structures 

2 for the Program. 

3 (c) BRIEFING TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 

4 days after developing the strategic plan required by sub5 section (a), the Administrator shall brief the Committee 

6 on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 

7 and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House 

8 of Representatives on the strategic plan. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 45-5 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 45-5 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 45-5 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
15 – Awareness Letter of Deloitte & Touche LLP










April 20,
2009





North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.


5314
South Yale Avenue


Suite
1000


Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74135





We have
reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company


Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial


information
of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. and subsidiary
for


the
three-month periods ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in
our


report
dated April 20, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed
no


opinion
on that information.





We are
aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your


Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, is


incorporated
by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-133848 on Form S-8


and No.
333-61393 on Form S-3 of North American Galvanizing & Coatings,
Inc.


(formerly
Kinark Corporation).





We also
are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under


the
Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
Registration


Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or


certified
by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.











/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP





Tulsa,
Oklahoma
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40973 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. P ED RO J AC I NT O B L AND EN , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R - 78- 1 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D AV IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ed era lP u b l i c D efen d er ap p oin ted to rep rese n t P ed ro J a ci n to B l an den ha s m oved f or l eave to w i t h dra w an d h as f i l ed a bri ef

i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif

o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . B l an den ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l os e s no n on frivo l ou s is s u e for ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,465,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,476,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                   185,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,805,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,964,277
<PP&E>                                      15,725,809
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,813,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,376,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,294,901
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          497,455
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,812,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,376,894
<SALES>                                     60,519,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            60,541,362
<CGS>                                       35,998,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,285,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,230,564
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,554,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,676,064
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,676,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Frank and Senior Judge Overton Argued by teleconference

JOHN LESTER SCOTT MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0831-04-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON MARCH 29, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Jerome James, Judge

James O. Broccoletti (Zoby & Broccoletti, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant A ttorney General (Je rry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

A jury found John Lester Scott guilty of first-degree murder , as well as other crimes. On appeal, Scott challenges only his murder conviction and claims his short-form indictment, patterned after the language of Co de § 19.2-221, charged him with se cond-degree, but not first-degree, murder. Scott contends the holding of the Supreme Court of the Unit ed States in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), required the indictment to charge all th e elements of the offense. Because the indictment did not specifically state all the elements of first-degree murder, Scott maintains, the trial court erred in refusing to amend the charge to second-degree murder.

In Walshaw v. Commonwealth , 44 Va. App. 103, 113, 603 S.E.2d 633, 638 (2004), this Court rejected arguments identica l to those advanced by Scott in this case and found the statutory short-form indictment “clearly ch arged first-degree murder.” This Court further concluded that Apprendi did not require a murder indictment to state the killing was done with malice or

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.-2- premeditation in order to consti tute a valid first-degree indict ment under Virginia law, which requires proof of both elements of the offense for conviction. Id.

Because our decision in Walshaw governs this case, we reject Scott’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to amend the indictment to charge second-degree murder. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction in affirmed.

Affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11611

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JAMES S. MARCELIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants, 

MR. BILLY, 

officer, 

MR. DANIELS, 

officer, 

MR. CUNNINGHAM, 

USCA11 Case: 23-11611 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11611

officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00228-BJD-PDB

____________________

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. James Marcelin appeals from the district court’s April 6, 2023 

order dismissing his claims against defendant Cunningham. That 

order is not final and appealable, however, because it did not end 

the litigation on the merits in the district court. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 

(11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). 

Marcelin’s claims against defendants Billy and Daniels remain pending before the district court, and the district court did 

not certify its order for immediate review under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 

USCA11 Case: 23-11611 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-11611 Opinion of the Court 3

689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not 

immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 

54(b)). Additionally, the district court’s April 6, 2023 order is not 

effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the 

case on the merits. Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252–53 (11th 

Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, 

inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”).

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-11611 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023 Page: 3 of 3
| 1. | The Form 10-K report of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Form 10-K report of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. that this certification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        | By:    | /s/ Christopher J. Calhoun |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
| Dated:  March 12, 2010 |   | Christopher J. Calhoun     |
|                        |   | Chief Executive Officer    |
|                        |   |                       |
|                        | By:    | /s/ Mark E. Saad           |
| Dated:  March 12, 2010 |   | Mark E. Saad               |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer    |
#### EUGENE M. JONES v. WAVERLY M. HESTER.

(Filed 23 September, 1964.)

1. Appeal and Error § 20—

Appellant may not complain of asserted errors committed in regard to issues answered in bis own favor.

2. Trial § 52—

Tbe amount of damages is to be decided by tbe jury and not tbe court, and tbe court does not commit error in refusing to set aside tbe verdict on tbe issues of compensatory and punitive damages because tbe jury bas answered tbe issues in tbe sum of one dollar each.

Appeal by plaintiff from *McLean, J.,*February, 1964 Term, Pole Superior Court. ■

The plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover actual and punitive damages alleged to have resulted from a libelous publication. The pleadings, issues, and much of the evidence are analyzed and discussed in this Court’s opinion on a former appeal reported in 260 N.C. 264. At the trial on the merits, the jury returned this verdict:

“1. Did the defendant write and publish Exhibit 19, as alleged in the complaint?

Answer: Yes. _

“2. If so, was said publication actuated by actual malice or to accomplish some improper or ulterior motive?

Answer: Yes.

“3. What actual damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover?

Answer: $1.00.

*488“4. What punitive damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover?

Answer: $1.00.”

The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict on the third and fourth issues. The court refused to allow the motion but entered judgments in accordance with the verdict, from which the plaintiff appealed.

*Robert N. Golding, W. Y. Wilkins, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

*McCown, Lavender McFarland by Wm. A. McFarland, and Hamrick & Jones by Fred D. Hamrick, Jr., for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff insists the trial' court committed errors relating to the first and second issues. If errors there be, they were not prejudicial for the reason that the answers to those issues were favorable to the plaintiff. The verdict on Issue No. 1 entitled the plaintiff to nominal damages. Any further compensatory damages (other than nominal) could be awarded only upon the basis of proof, by the greater weight of the evidence. The answer to Issue No. 2 permitted the jury to award punitive damages in its discretion, not as a matter of right, but as punishment for intentional wrongdoing. The damages to be awarded, therefore, were matters to be decided by the jury as issues of fact and not by the court as questions of law. The court did not commit error in refusing to set aside the issues as to damages.

In the verdict and judgment, we find

No error.