alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, Edward H. Orzetti, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge,
this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, 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 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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers 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, 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officers 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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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.

Date: May 15, 2007



|    |  |                                       |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ EDWARD H. ORZETTI                 |  | 
|    |  | Edward H. Orzetti                     |  | 
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and President |  |
| 1. | JA      Development Co., Ltd. (British VirginIslands) |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | JingAo      Solar Co., Ltd. (Ningjin, China) |
|----|----------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Shanghai      JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai,China) |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | JA      Solar USA Inc. (California, USA) |
|----|------------------------------------------|

| 5. | Shanghai      JA Solar PV Technology Co,. Ltd. (Shanghai,  China) |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6. | JA      Solar Technology YangZhou Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou,  China) |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7. | JA      Solar Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong) |
|----|---------------------------------------------|

| 8. | Jing      Hai Yang Semiconductor Material (Donghai) Co., Ltd. (Donghai,      China) |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 9. | Yangzhou      JA Solar R&D Corporation Limited (Yangzhou,  China) |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 10. | Jindosun      Park.,Inc. (Korea) |
|-----|----------------------------------|

| 11. | JA      Luxembourg S.ò.r.l. (Luxembourg) |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------|

| 12. | JA      Yangzhou PV Technology Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou,  China) |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| 13. | JA      Solar GmbH (Germany) |
|-----|------------------------------|

----
#### William Gray v. Cornelius Smith, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Order striking out demurrer affirmed, with costs and disbursements to be included in the plaintiff’s bill of costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2033

ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evang.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF, Department and

Detention Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-03-2846-2-23AJ)

Submitted: November 17, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rosalie T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Pendarvis

McDonald, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rosalie T. Johnson appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Berkeley

County Sheriff, No. CA-03-2846-2-23AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2004). 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
#### George Chapman, Respondent, v. The City of Rochester, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
****

**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

In connection with the Unizan Financial Corp.’s (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger L. Mann, 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 of2002, that:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.

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

 

|        |         |   |   |
|-------------|--------------|--------|--------|
| Date:  | May 13, 2003 |   |   | /s/  ROGER L. MANN |
|        |              |   |   |  |
|        |         |   |   | **Roger L. Mann****President and Chief Executive Officer** |
#### NAOMI McMILLAN LEDFORD v. HOLLY LEDFORD; J. FLAY LEDFORD and Wife, MARGARET W. LEDFORD; LOUISE LEDFORD WYATT and Husband, GUY E. WYATT; MARY GRACE LEDFORD HEMBY and Husband, FRANK H. HEMBY; HELEN BRUCE LEDFORD GRUBB and Husband, JACK GRUBB; SAM M. LEDFORD and Wife, CAROL LEDFORD; SARA BESS LEDFORD ORMAND and Husband, JACK ORMAND; A. B. LEDFORD and Wife, LOUISE CLARY LEDFORD.

(Filed 18 October, 1950.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bobbitt, J.,*at the March-April Term, 1950, of Cleveland.

This is a civil action to set aside a consent judgment and a deed of release signed by the plaintiff on the ground of mutual mistake on the part of the plaintiff and the defendants.

It appears from the record that J. F. Ledford, the late husband of the plaintiff, died on 20 March, 1947, leaving a last will and testament, from which the plaintiff dissented. She thereafter filed in the Superior Court of Cleveland County a petition for the allotment of dower.

The parties thereto compromised their differences and a consent judgment was entered and the plaintiff, in consideration of the sum of $15,000, paid to her by the defendants, executed a quitclaim deed to *523tbe defendants, on 27 October, 1947, as provided in the consent judgment.

The plaintiff thereafter made a motion in the cause to set aside the judgment entered in the proceeding signed by consent of her attorney. The motion was denied and the plaintiff appealed to this Court and the ruling of the lower court was upheld. See *Ledford v.*Ledford, 229 N.C. 373, 49 S.E. 2d 794.

After the decision was rendered in the above case, this action was instituted.

Upon the hearing below, at the close of all the evidence, the defendants renewed their motion for judgment as of nonsuit interposed at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and the motion was allowed. Plaintiff appeals and assigns error.

*Nao.mi McMillan Ledford in propria personcu*

*Falls & Falls for defendants.*

Per Curiam :

The evidence as revealed by the record herein is insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury on the question of mutual mistake.

The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.
___________ No. 95-4088

___________ Robbin Somers, individually and * as next friend of Lauren Somers, * *

Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Northwest Iowa Mental Health * Center; Jim Simpson, Dr., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 26, 1996 Filed: August 2, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Ro bbinSomers brought this diversity tort action against Northwes t Iowa Mental Health Center and its former executive director, based on thei r involvement in child-visitation issues arising o ut of a divorce proceeding Somers had initiated, and an ensuing child-abuse investigation. Th e district court granted defendants' summary judgment motion, concluding tha t they were entitled to immunity under Muzingo v. St. Luke's Hosp. , 51 8 N.W.2d 776, 776 (Iowa 1994) (per curiam) (extending quasi-judicial immunit y to cou rt-appointed psychiatrists and hospitals asked by court to rende r opinion about patient's mental health). Somers appeals. Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that thedistrict court correc tly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

We also re ject as meritless Somers's contention on appeal that she i s ent itled to relief because defendants allegedly withheld discoverabl e information. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Emil A. Cornuel and others, Respondents, v. Otto C. Heinze, Appellant.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
#### Sarah Lazarus and others, Appellants, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and others, Respondents.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
Exhibit 10.8

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

                             IMS HEALTH INCORPORATED

                            SAVINGS EQUALIZATION PLAN

                        EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1999


      1. Section II of the IMS Health Incorporated Savings Equalization Plan
(the "Plan") is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

            "II. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN. IMS Health Incorporated (the
            "Corporation" or the "Company") shall administer the Plan , except
            that any action authorized to be taken by the Company hereunder may
            also be taken by any committee or person(s) duly authorized by the
            Board of Directors of the Company or the duly authorized delegees of
            such duly authorized committee or person(s). The Company shall have
            full authority to determine all questions arising in connection with
            the Plan, including interpreting its provisions and construing all
            of its terms; may adopt procedural rules; and may employ and rely on
            such legal counsel, such actuaries, such accountants and such agents
            as it may deem advisable to assist in the administration of the
            Plan. All of its rules, interpretations and decisions shall be
            applied in a uniform manner to all participants similarly situated
            and decisions of the Company shall be conclusive and binding on all
            persons."

         2. Section V of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following
sentence to the end of the first paragraph thereof:

            "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Employee Benefits Committee of
            the Corporation may amend the Plan without the approval of the Board
            of Directors of the Corporation with respect to amendments that such
            Committee determines do not have a significant effect on the cost of
            the Plan."
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I, Edwin F. Heinen, Chief Financial Officer of Glowpoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)

The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2)

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

Date:  May 13, 2008

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ EDWIN F. HEINEN    
| | Edwin F. Heinen        
| | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Glowpoint, Inc. and will be retained by Glowpoint, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Millinery Center Building Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, *v.*Hausman Bros., Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 29, 1936.

*Herman A. Brand [Charles J. Herson*of counsel], for the appellant-respondent.

*Samuel Bierman,*for the respondent-appellant.

Per Curiam.

The final order in favor of the landlord on the tenant’s default in the July summary proceeding, if due service of the precept had been made therein, would establish that the defendant was in possession of the premises after default in payment *278of the July rent, and preclude the defendant herein from introducing evidence of a prior surrender of the premises. *(Brown*v. *Mayor,*66 N. Y. 385, 391; *Reich*v. *Cochran,*151 id. 122; *Grafton*v. *Brigham,*70 Hun, 134.) The decision in *Warrin*v. *Haverty*(149 App. Div. 564) is not based on the doctrine of prior adjudication. But the affidavit of the process server in the present case that he made conspicuous place service at the premises is on a printed blank indorsed on the precept stating, among other things, that the tenant *“*could not be found after due and diligent search; *”*it presents not the slightest evidence that any effort was made to serve the tenant in the manner prescribed by subdivision 1 of section 1421 of the Civil Practice Act, and in the absence of such evidence it follows that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction of the person of the tenant in the July summary proceeding, and the final order relied upon by plaintiff -is inoperative. *(Matthews*v. *Carman,*122 App. Div. 582; *Mischner*v. *Altman,*145 id. 251.)

Order affirmed.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 31795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Pediatric Trials Network.
    Date: June 23, 2010.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304. (301) 435-6680. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e1d050f000a0f1d0f2e030f07024000070640090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddaeb6bcb3b9bcaebc9db0bcb4b1f3b3b4b5f3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. 2010-13482 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IB 

Union Calendar No. 505 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5401 

[Report No. 113–673] 

To impose limitations on the immigration status and immigration benefits 

for Libyan and third country nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 

Mr. GOWDY (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CHAFFETZ, and Mr. 

FARENTHOLD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

DECEMBER 14, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5401 RH

A BILL 

To impose limitations on the immigration status and immigration benefits for Libyan and third country nationals 

acting on behalf of Libyan entities. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5401 RH

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 ‘‘Protecting the Home5 land Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIBYAN AND THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS ACTING 

7 ON BEHALF OF LIBYAN ENTITIES. 

8 (a) TERMINATION OF AND LIMITATION ON STA9 TUS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of the immi10 gration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of 

11 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)), 

12 the nonimmigrant status of any Libyan national, or of any 

13 other foreign national acting on behalf of a Libyan entity, 

14 who is engaging in aviation maintenance, flight operations, 

15 or nuclear-related studies or training is terminated. 

16 (b) LIMITATION ON BENEFITS.—Notwithstanding 

17 any other provision of the immigration laws (as such term 

18 is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nation19 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)), the following benefits will not 

20 be available to any Libyan national or any other foreign 

21 national acting on behalf of a Libyan entity where the pur22 pose is to engage in, or seek to obtain aviation mainte23 nance, flight operations or nuclear-related studies or train24 ing: 

25 (1) Application for school transfer. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 5401 RH

1 (2) Application for extension of stay. 

2 (3) Employment authorization or practical 

3 training. 

4 (4) Request for reinstatement of student status. 

5 (5) Application for change of nonimmigrant sta6 tus. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 505 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5401 

[Report No. 113–673] 

A BILL 

To impose limitations on the immigration status 

tities. country nationals acting on behalf of Libyan enand immigration benefits for Libyan and third 

DECEMBER 14, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL BOZIER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 56 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Wilhelmina Schmeiser, Respondent, v. Charles Schmeiser, Appellant, and Others, Defendants.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of - costs, for error in admitting the testimony which appears at folios 155 and 156 of the printed record. We think that the weight of the evidence does not establish fraud, but it might be sufficient to justify a finding that the minds of the parties never met.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
#### Mary A. B. Swan v. Van Buren Wheat and others.

— Motion ior a new trial denied and judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4137 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 14:02:00 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4137 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 14:02:00 Page 2 of

2