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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Charles C. Jacobs, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of First McMinnville Corporation;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects,
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

November 9, 2005

/s/ Charles C. Jacobs
-----------------------------
Chairman and CEO
Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
Exhibit 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Gary L. Yancey, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applied Signal Technology, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.



|Date: March 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Gary L. Yancey                                 
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | Gary L. YanceyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 15, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00239-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M.M. AND M.W.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-23266

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal of an interlocutory order in a bill‐of‐review 

proceeding. The trial court signed an order purporting to vacate the order in a 

child-support-enforcement proceeding nearly two years earlier, but did not then go 

on to address the merits of the claim as required in a bill-of-review proceeding. 

Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (“A bill of 

review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the 

merits is interlocutory and not appealable.”); Mills v. Corvettes of Hous., Inc., 44 

S.W.3d 197, 199 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (same).
2

Recognizing that this is a non‐appealable interlocutory order, the appellee 

asked that this court consider “both parties’ briefing of these issues as consent and 

agreement for the Court to address this matter.” We therefore notified the parties 

on December 16, 2014 of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction 

unless the appellant filed an amended notice of appeal in compliance with Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.2(c). See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.2(c) (setting forth the 

required contents of a notice of appeal in an agreed interlocutory appeal). The 

appellant did not file an amended notice of appeal, and his responsive brief does 

not demonstrate that we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory

order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.2(d); 

42.3(a); 43.2(f).

/s/ Tracy Christopher

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.
#### Peter G. Ten Eyck, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Eastern Farm Products, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

August 17, 1936.

*Henry S. Manley, Counsel to Division of Milk Control [Robert G. Blabey, Assistant Counsel,*of counsel], for the plaintiff.

*Rubinton & Coleman,*for the defendant.

*403Foster, J.

Application by the plaintiff for an order enjoining the defendant during the pendency of this action from buying milk from producers for resale in any form without the execution and filing with the plaintiff of a surety bond, or cash, or bonds of the United States or of the State of New York, in the sum of $15,000.

It is asserted by the defendant that grave doubts exist as to the constitutionality of the so-called Milk Control Law in view of the decision in *Baldwin*v. *G. A. F. Seelig*(294 U. S. 511). Such doubts are not apparent unless one takes the view that the courts of ultimate appeal will completely reverse themselves. *(Nebbia*v. *New York,*291 U. S. 502; *Hegemen Farms Corp.*v. *Baldwin,*293 id. 305.) But irrespective of one’s view as to the price fixing part of the statute the principle that the State may require a bond from a milk dealer as a prerequisite to doing business is firmly established. *(People*v. *Perretta,*253 N. Y. 305.) As pointed out this requirement antedates emergency legislation, in principle at least if not in detail.

With the wisdom or expediency of such legislation courts are not concerned. The question of constitutionality is a question of power. This is not to say that the plaintiff has the right to act capriciously and arbitrarily in exacting a bond which amounts to confiscation. From the information disclosed on these papers it cannot be justly said that the plaintiff has abused his discretionary power. The bond required appears to be fairly commensurate, within reasonable limits, to amount of business concededly done. The answer of the defendant that it cannot furnish such a bond is not sufficient. Such an answer might be made in any case.

The law does not require a hearing to be held preliminary to fixing the amount of the bond, and to read such a provision into the statute would be usurping the functions of the Legislature. Bonds in the sum of $7,500, deposited to protect producers for the license year ending March 31, 1936, in no way affect this application.

The situation is rendered somewhat anomalous by the apparent fact that many of the producers here do not want the protection, or at least the remedy, provided by statute. Again that cannot be a concern of the court. A statute exists which, under the authorities, cannot be held doubtful because of lack of legislative power. Under that statute the plaintiff has acted within reasonable limitations. He has appealed to the court to sustain his order, and under the orderly processes of government the court is bound to act. If the statute is unwise or, whether unwise or not, the producers do not want it, they must look to the Legislature.

Application granted.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

NEAPOLEON JWAN FREEM AN, SR., Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 5023

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00327

- EJD, Judge Edward J. Damich.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER CURIAM

. O R D E R

The court construes Neapoleon Jwan Freeman, Sr. ’s April 21, 2014 letter as a motion for various relief, inclu ding the appointment of counsel

. Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 14-5023 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/30/2014FREEMAN v. US 2

The motion is denied.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s24 Case: 14-5023 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/30/2014
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



I, James M. McNamee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
quarterly report of Hooper Holmes, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such quarterly
report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hooper Holmes, Inc.



Dated: August 9, 2005



/s/ James M. McNameeJames M. McNameeChairman, President andChief Executive Officer




This certification shall not be
deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hooper Holmes, Inc. and will be retained by Hooper
Holmes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00584

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N. , A.E.N., and E.O.R., Childre n

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 02564

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal.

SIGNED January 22, 2020.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 for Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation; the Peoples Federal Savings
and Loan Association of Sidney 401(k) Retirement Plan (Registration No.
333-37301), Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation 1998 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan (Registration No. 333-73395), and Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation 1998
Management Recognition Plan (Registration No. 333-73393), of our report dated
July 10, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Peoples-Sidney
Financial Corporation as of June 30, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of three
years in the period ended June 30, 2003, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation for the year ended
June 30, 2003.


                                            /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Columbus, Ohio
September 26, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                             45.
**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 report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Ramesh
Zacharias Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.
 
 Dated:
March 30, 2005
 
 By:
    /s/
      Dr. Ramesh ZachariasName:
    Dr.
      Ramesh ZachariasTitle:
    Chief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1  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 report of Celestica Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2013, as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Craig H. Muhlhauser, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Darren Myers, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 Company.   March 14,   2014
/s/   Craig H. MuhlhauserCraig   H. MuhlhauserChief   Executive OfficerMarch 14,   2014
/s/   Darren MyersDarren   MyersChief   Financial Officer  A signed original of this written 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.
EXHIBIT 32.2    CERTIFICATIONS







CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









I, Michael J. Shea, Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Hooper Holmes, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hooper Holmes, Inc.




Dated:  May 7, 2010









/s/ Michael J. Shea




__________________________




Michael J. Shea




Senior Vice President and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer




This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hooper Holmes, Inc. and will be retained by Hooper Holmes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JIMMI TYLER REBISH, Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD
, Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3087

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF

- 0752

- 13

- 0362 -I- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

The Department of the Interior (“Interior”) moves to reform the official caption to name the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) as the respondent, and for an extension of time for the Board to file its response brief 21 days from the date of disposit ion of this motion.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is desi gnated as the respondent when the Board’s decision co ncerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The Case: 14-3087 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2014REBISH v. MSPB 2

employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches t he merits of the underlying case. Here, the Board dismissed Jimmi Tyler Rebish’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to reform the caption is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.
(2) The motion for an extension of time to file the r esponse brief is granted to the extent that the Board should calculate the due date for its brief from the date of filing of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s21 Case: 14-3087 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/18/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         294,494               7,777,996
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,471,293              22,718,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,125,023)             (5,316,689)
<INVENTORY>                                    941,819               1,690,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,117,668              30,840,634
<PP&E>                                       8,079,937              26,300,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                (110,803)             (2,293,193)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,133,534             189,388,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,518,938              37,157,395
<BONDS>                                     60,164,500             161,190,938
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         59                      59
<COMMON>                                           153                     162
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,481,117             (10,019,866)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,133,534             189,388,440
<SALES>                                      5,506,110              91,773,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,506,110              91,773,041
<CGS>                                        5,197,158              93,540,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,197,158              93,540,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               591,581              11,061,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             612,071              11,137,877
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (282,629)            (12,828,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (22,502)               (641,670)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (260,127)            (12,187,217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               4,739,757
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (260,127)            (16,926,974)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0                      0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998
<S>                              <C>
<CASH>                           19,642
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>           0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                 46,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>      40,393      
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>           59,362
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>             59,870
<LOANS>                          289,582
<ALLOWANCE>                      7,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   482,335
<DEPOSITS>                       438,956
<SHORT-TERM>                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>              5,059
<LONG-TERM>                      0
<COMMON>                         2,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                       38,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   482,335
<INTEREST-LOAN>                  13,126
<INTEREST-INVEST>                2,821
<INTEREST-OTHER>                 1,298
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                 17,245
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>               9,155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               9,155
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>            8,090
<LOAN-LOSSES>                    2,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                  7,799
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (852)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>       (852)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     (852)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (0.70)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                   3.79                   
<LOANS-NON>                      8,706
<LOANS-PAST>                     2,016
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                 2,782
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                  12,670
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                 5,236
<CHARGE-OFFS>                    2,214
<RECOVERIES>                     1,132
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                7,054
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>             7,054
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>          0
        

</TABLE>