alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit  99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection with the Quarterly Report of 800America Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  period  ended  June  30, 2002 as filed with the U.S.
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
E.  Rabi,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as  added  by  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:     August  14,  2002      By:
                                     /s/  David  E.  Rabi
                                     -------------------------
                                     David  E.  Rabi,  Chief  Executive  Officer
                                     and  Chief  Financial  Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      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;
andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Ronald G. THOMAS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-1084

983 S.W.2d 122

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered November 19, 1998

*263
      *Appellant,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

On July 26, 1996, judgment was entered reflecting that Ronald G. Thomas had entered a plea of guilty to rape, sexual abuse in the first degree, and sexual solicitation. An aggregate sentence of 264 months’ imprisonment was imposed.

Thomas subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 challenging the judgment. An evidentiary hearing was held at which petitioner Thomas was represented by an appointed attorney, Thomas E. Smith. The petition was denied in an order entered January 16, 1998.

On February 2, 1998, at 11:52 a.m., attorney Smith filed a timely notice of appeal from the order. On that same day at 2:32 p.m., an order was entered relieving Smith as counsel.

The record on appeal was not tendered to this court until June 9, 1998, which was 127 days after the notice of appeal was filed. Because Ark. R. App. P. 5(a) requires a record to be tendered within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal, our clerk declined to lodge it. Now before us is Ronald Thomas’s *pro se*motion for rule on clerk seeking to file the record belatedly.

The initial question presented by the *pro se*motion is whether Thomas Smith, the attorney who filed the notice of appeal, was obligated to represent the petitioner on appeal. That is, was the order relieving Smith that was entered *after*the notice *264of appeal but on the same day effective? We conclude that the order was not effective.

Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure — Criminal provides:

> Trial counsel, whether retained or court appointed, shall continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, unless permitted by the trial court or the Arkansas Supreme Court to withdraw in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause. *After the notice of appeal of a judgment of conviction has been filed, the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to relieve counsel and appoint new counsel.*(Emphasis added.)

We have held that Rule 16 applies to postconviction appeals as well as direct appeals from judgments of conviction. *Miller v. State,*299 Ark. 548, 775 S.W.2d 79 (1989).

Because Smith was not relieved before he filed the notice of appeal, Smith was obliged to perfect the appeal of the adverse ruling. Once the notice of appeal was filed, any motion to be relieved as counsel should have been filed in this court which has sole jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 16 to entertain such motions. *See Parker v. State,*329 Ark. 363, 952 S.W.2d 133 (1997). As Smith was not relieved by the trial court before the notice of appeal was filed, he remains attorney-of-record for the appeal.

The *pro se*motion for rule on clerk is granted. The Clerk is directed to lodge the tendered record and set a briefing schedule.

Motion granted.

A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2945

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
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 on Form 10-Q/A of Aurora Foods Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Dale F. Morrison, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William R. McManaman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|/s/ Dale F. Morrison                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|Dale F. Morrison Chairman of the Board
and Interim Chief Executive Officer September 16,
2003



|/s/ William R. McManaman                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|William R. McManaman Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer September 16,
2003



This certification accompanies each
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40058

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS ALFREDO ARREDONDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-413-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alfredo 

Arredondo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arredondo has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Arredondo’s 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40058 Document: 00514406347 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2018
No. 17-40058

2

appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea 

agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the 

need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. 

Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. 

Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent 

review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 

concur in counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue 

for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40058 Document: 00514406347 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2018
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00 390

- CV

I N R E C ARROLL I NDEPENDENT S CHOOL D ISTRICT B OARD OF T RUSTEES ; M ICHELLE M OORE , IN HER

CA PACITY AS T RUS TEE A ND P RESIDENT OF THE C ARROLL I NDEPEN DENT S CHO OL D IST RICT B OARD OF T RUSTEES ; S HERI M ILLS
, IN

HER CAPACITY AS T RUSTEE OF THE C ARROLL I NDEPENDENT S CHOOL D ISTRICT B OARD OF T RUSTEES ; AND T ODD C ARLTON
, IN HIS CAPACITY AS T RUSTEE OF THE C ARROLL I NDEPENDENT S C HOOL D ISTRICT B OARD O F T RUSTEES
, Relators §

§

§

§

§ Original Proce eding

153rd District Court of Tarrant County , Texas

Trial Court No. 153

- 319405

- 20

October 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JU DGMENT

This court has considered relators ’ petitio n for writ of mandamus and holds

that the petition should be dismissed

. It is ordered that the petition for writ of

mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DIS TRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell Justice Wade Bi rdwell
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

HAILY J. OOMMEN,

Petitioner

v.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 176 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
#### Stacey Eugene JOHNSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-743

982 S.W.2d 669

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered December 3, 1998

*David Lewis Clark,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Stacey Eugene Johnson has filed a motion for access to sealed records. We granted Appellant’s motion for writ of certiorari to settle the record on September 10, 1998. The writ was returned on October 12, 1998, and the supplemental record was filed at that time. Included in the supplemental record are sealed psychotherapy records of a child witness that were received *in camera*during Appellant’s trial. The trial court denied Appellant access to those records below.

Appellant now requests access to those records to review them for their possible bearing on the issues he raises on appeal. We grant the motion and order that both Appellant and the State be provided access to the sealed records, and that immediately thereafter, the records shall be resealed. To protect the patient’s privacy, we direct that both Appellant’s and the State’s abstracts and briefs be submitted to this court under seal, with only the State being permitted to access Appellant’s briefs and only the Appellant being permitted to access the State’s brief. Additionally, we direct the Clerk to set a new briefing schedule.
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 on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 28, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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.



/s/ Richard E. LundinRichard E. LundinChief Executive OfficerMarch 25, 2008
Ex-99.1 a)

                REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON MANAGEMENT'S
            ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM SERVICING STANDARDS
             SET FORTH IN THE UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR
                                MORTGAGE BANKERS



Board of Directors
Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion about Countrywide Credit Industries,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (which includes its wholly-owned subsidiary, Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc) ("the Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE
ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) as of and for the year ended
February 28, 1999 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.
and Subsidiaries (which includes wholly-owned subsidiary, Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc.) complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended February 28, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

/s/ Grant Thorton LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 23, 1999






                                     - 8 -
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3249

General Bearing Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00209

- CV

GORILLA SKATE CLOTHI NG, INC. AND LADISLAS MANDE APPELLANTS

V.

MERCHANT CASH CLOUD APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRAN T COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2017

- 002810

- 2

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On June 26, 2018

, and July 9, 2018, we notified appellant s in accordance

with rul e of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this appeal unless

the $ 205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellant s have not

paid the $ 205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant s failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 28 , 20 15

, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant s shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 26, 2018

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- D istrict Litigation

, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals ’ fees).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3829

Alo Tennessee Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1476

_____________________________

E.W., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Robert E. Long, Judge.

February 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his adjudication of delinquency for 

trespassing on school grounds pursuant to section 810.097(1), 

Florida Statutes. Appellant contends the State failed to present a 

prima facie case of guilt because there was no evidence appellant 

was on school grounds for an illegitimate purpose. We agree.

The State presented video surveillance evidence from 

Rickards High School and GPS data from appellant’s electronic 

monitoring device to show that appellant was on the grounds of 

Rickards High in a white car that drove by the front office. There 

was no evidence the car stopped or was anywhere other than the 

public driveway for a very short period of time. The school’s 

assistant principal testified that appellant was not a registered 
2

student and did not check in with the front office. This evidence 

alone, however, does not prove that appellant was on school 

grounds for an illegitimate purpose.

Since the State failed to provide evidence of an essential 

element of the offense, we are required to REVERSE and REMAND

with directions for the trial court to vacate appellant’s 

adjudication of delinquency for trespassing on school grounds.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, 

Region One, and Melissa J. Ford, Assistant Conflict Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.