alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31(a)**

I, Henry Dattler, chief executive officer of OPENLiMiT, Inc. (“Registrant”) certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Registrant; 

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 period presented in this Report; 

4.     I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me 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 my 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 registrants 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.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting. 

Date: August 11, 2006 

/s/ Henry Dattler

Henry Dattler 

Chief Executive Officer 

**22**

----
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Murfreesboro Bancorp, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("the Report"), I, William E. Rowland, President and Chief
Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



     May 14, 2003                                /s/ William E. Rowland
     ------------                                ----------------------
         Date                                      William E. Rowland
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Murfreesboro Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Murfreesboro
Bancorp, Inc. 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. 14-50222

Summary Calendar

HANFORD-SOUTHPORT, L.L.C.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; PATRICK O'CONNOR, In His Official and 

Individual Capacity; SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEMS; BRICE 

MOCZYGEMBA, P.E.; PAPE DAWSON ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED; 

PIPELAYERS, INCORPORATED; S.J. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION OF 

TEXAS, LIMITED, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CV-1007

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Hanford-Southport, L.L.C. (“Hanford”) appeals the 

several February 10, 2014 rulings of the district court, effectively rejecting and

* 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

August 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50222 Document: 00512725909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2014
No. 14-50222

dismissing all of Hanford’s claims against the numerous DefendantsAppellees. We affirm.

This protracted kerfuffle began in 2010 with a routine condemnation 

proceeding instituted by the City of San Antonio through its Water System 

(“SAWS”), seeking an easement in state court across some of Hanford’s real 

estate. Unsatisfied with the award proposed by special commissioners, 

Hanford contested the quantum of damages, but the trial court granted the 

permanent easement sought by SAWS, including the right to clear brush and 

trees, and awarded damages to Hanford in excess of $600,000. Hanford 

appealed, but the state appellate court affirmed the trial court. Hanford then 

sought review in the Texas Supreme Court which refused to hear the case. 

Hanford next sought relief in the United States Supreme Court, but it too 

declined to hear the case. That, however, was not enough for Hanford: It 

prosecuted its previously filed federal case arising under the same facts, but 

like the four courts before it, the district court rejected Hanford’s claims, 

largely by granting summary judgments and dismissal orders. Despite that

solid string of rejections by five courts, Hanford nevertheless appealed to us.

Enough is enough! In addition to affirming the district court’s rulings 

for essentially the reasons patiently set forth earlier this year in its February 

Order, we caution Hanford and its counsel that frivolous or contumacious

prolongation of its litigation in this court, such as seeking reconsideration or 

rehearing, could lead to disciplinary actions, including fines or sanctions.

The district court’s dismissal of Hanford’s action with prejudice is, in all 

respects,

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50222 Document: 00512725909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2014
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

t0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146487

AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146487

COA: 305592

Wayne CC: 10

- 010509

- NF

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3261

ADH Guardian USA LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6569]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Meeting of the Ad Hoc Hearing and Hearing Impairment 
Subcommittee of the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 
Advisory Council

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Ad Hoc Hearing and Hearing Impairment Subcommittee of the 
National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council on 
April 6, 1995. The meeting will take place from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. in 
Conference Room 9, Building 31C, National Institutes of Health, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, and will be conducted as a 
telephone conference with the use of a speaker phone.

    The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held to discuss 
changes in the scientific field of hearing and hearing impairment since 
the Research Plan was written, compare the research portfolio of the 
Institute with the priorities in the Research Plan to determine areas 
of emphasis and levels of activity, and to identify gaps and to suggest 
new initiatives in preparation for the updating of the hearing and 
hearing impairment section of the Research Plan. Attendance by the 
public will be limited to the space available.
    Summaries of the Subcommittee's meeting and a roster of members may 
be obtained from Mr. Baldwin Wong, Program Analyst, National Institute 
on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Building 31, Room 3C08, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 402-
1129, upon request.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact Mr. Wong in advance of the meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders)

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Margery G. Grubb,
Senior Committee Management Specialist, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-6569 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### STATE v. ED MOORE.

(Filed 8 May, 1929.)

Criminal X/aw G d — List of witnesses endorsed on bill of indictment not material evidence and its exclusion not error.

The defendant in a criminal action is not entitled to the introduction in evidence of the list of State’s witnesses endorsed on the bill of indictment for the purpose of showing that all of them had not been examined by the grand jury nor called as witnesses at the trial.

Appeal by defendant from *Stack, J.,*at January Term, 1929, of MeckleNbubg.

No error.

This is a criminal action in wbicb defendant was convicted of murder in tbe second degree.

*197From judgment tbat defendant be confined in tbe State’s prison for a term of not less tban fifteen, nor more tban twenty years, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court. °

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash, for the State.*

*J. F. Flowers for defendant.*

Pees Cueiam:.

Defendant’s contention on bis appeal to tbis Court tbat be is entitled to a new trial for errors committed on tbe trial in tbe Superior Court cannot be sustained.

There was no error in excluding tbe list of witnesses endorsed on tbe bill of indictment as evidence. Defendant’s purpose in offering tbis list as evidence, as stated by bis counsel, was to show tbat tbe grand jury did not examine all tbe persons whose names were endorsed on tbe bill of indictment as witnesses for tbe State, and tbat tbe solicitor bad not called all these persons as witnesses on tbe trial. *We*are unable to see bow any inference unfavorable to tbe State or favorable to tbe defendant could have been drawn from these facts by tbe jury. They were wholly irrelevant, and bad no probative value as evidence.

There was no error in tbe charge of tbe court to tbe jury. Taken in its entirety tbe charge was free from error and was in full compliance with tbe statute. C. S., 564. Tbe judgment is affirmed.

No error.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Tufco Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  3.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and4.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Date: December 29, 2004
    
    /s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerVice President and Chief Financial Officer
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-2018-0025-2943

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3456

Scosche Industries, 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 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

General Counsel
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 14 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ANTHONY COLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. JAMES HUFF,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-1443 (D.C. No. 97-WY-747-WD) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Collins appeals the distr ict court’s grant of summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendant, Denver Police Detective James Huff. “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standar d used by the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).” Novell, Inc. v. Fede ral Ins. Co. , 141 F.3d 983, 985 (10th Cir. 1998). Collins asserts that Detective Huff violated his ci vil rights by omitting material, exculpatory information when he prepared an affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant for Mr. Collins for check fraud. Itis a Fourth Amendment violation to knowingly or recklessly omit from an arrest affidavit information which, if included, would have vitiated probable cause. See Stewart v. Donges , 915 F.2d 572, 582-83 (10th Cir. 1990). After a tho rough review of the record, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Collins presented no evidence that even suggests that Detective Huff knowingly orrecklessly disregarded the truth when he prepared his affidavit and presented Mr. Collins’ arrest warrant. We therefore conclude that Detective Huff did not v iolate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reason s stated by the district court in its order dated November 6, 1997.-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett Senior Circuit Judge
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2629

Aerus LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### ROBERT L. SMITH v. PAUL CHATHAM et al.

(Filed 15 December, 1926.)

Appeal by defendant, Paul Chatham, from *Harding, J.,*at February Term, 1926, of MeceleNbueg.

Civil action'to recover plaintiff’s part of commissions arising from tbe negotiation of leases between landowners and F. W. Woolwortb & Company for storehouses situate in Concord, Monroe, Gastonia, Shelby and High Point.

From a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*A. B. Justice and John M. Robinson for plaintiff.*

*Gansler & Cansler and H. L. Taylor for defendant.*

*832Pee CuRiAM.

The controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to issues of fact, which the jury alone could determine. All matters in dispute have been settled by the verdict, and no action or ruling on the part of the trial court has been discovered by us which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the ease has been tried substantially in accord with the principles of law applicable.

No error.