alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1I, Louis LeCalsey, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tufco Technologies, Inc., certifythat:1.I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2006 of Tufco Technologies, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: December 29, 2006   /s/ Louis LeCalsey, III Louis LeCalsey, III  President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig Lawhead, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|By:                     |  | /s/ Craig Lawhead
|Craig Lawhead          
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 11, 2011           

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135213 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135213 COA: 272729 Oakland CC: 2005-205669-FH DONALD WILLIAM REBMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 20, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 22, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1  In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of OpenCell Biomed, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacities set forth below 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 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 results of operations of the Company.   March 15, 2010 /s/ Mislav Pavelic Mislav Pavelic, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
## 1999 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-26-1999 

# B uehl v . V au ghn

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :
D ocke t 97-1241

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1999 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" B ue hl v . V au ghn " (1999). 1999 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 21. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999/21

### OFFICE OF THE CLERK

P. DOUGLAS SISK UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TELEPHONE CLERK FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT215-597-1895 21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 601 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA 19106-1790
January 26, 1999
West Publishing Company Editorial Dept. 610 Opperman Drive Eagan, MN 55123
Re: Beuhl vs. Vaughn. 97-1241

Dear Publisher:
Please make the following correction to the Op inion in Beuhl, No. 97-1241, filed on January 20, 1999:
Please change the last sentence in footnote 11 to read:
As noted below, however, the Supreme Court has expresly reserved decision on the question whether this rational e applies to cases where the jury returns inconsistent guilty verdicts, and we have stated that logically incompatible guilty verdicts may not stand. See United States v. Gross, 961 F.2d 1097, 1106 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 965 (1992).

Please italicize "See" "United States v. Gross " and "cert. denied"
Kindly acknowledge receipt on the enclosed copy of this letter.
Very truly yours, P. DOUGLAS SISK, CLERK

By: Phyllis Ruffin, Case M anager

cc: Commerce Clearing House, Inc. U. S. Law Week Lexis David Rudovsky, Esq. Mary M. Killinger, Esq. Hon. John R. Padova
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Trust Fund Investment in Equities

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						G5: Invest 15 percent of the OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves in equities (phased in 2024-2033), assuming an ultimate 2.3 percent annual real rate of return on equities. Thus, the ultimate rate of return on equities is the same as that assumed for Trust Fund bonds.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
| *  A change in the investment of trust fund reserves to include some           equities affects the size of all summarized measures because increased           "present-value" discounting reduces the weight on values for more distant           future years.  As a result, the magnitude of the current-law actuarial           balance and the summarized effects of most proposals is reduced.  Therefore,           the size of the change in the long-range actuarial balance indicated here           cannot be interpreted directly as a reduction in the shortfall.  The actual           reduction in the shortfall from equity investment depends on the amount of           reserves that are available for investment throughout the period.  For example,           if provisions to change revenue or scheduled benefits resulted in a purely           pay-as-you-go system (reserves just above zero throughout the period), then           investment in equities would have no effect on the actuarial balance. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6642]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 944

Restricting or Prohibiting Attracting Sharks by Chum or Other 
Means in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Public Hearing

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and 
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric's Sanctuaries and 
Reserves Division (SRD) is considering amending the regulations for the 
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) to restrict 
or prohibit the attracting of sharks by the use of chum or other means 
in the MBNMS. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking published 
February 28, 1995 (60 FR 10812) discussed the reasons SRD is 
considering restricting or prohibiting this activity in the MBNMS. A 
30-day comment period closes on March 30, 1995. A public hearing has 
been scheduled to assist in maximizing public comment on this issue. 
Individuals wishing to make a statement will be required to sign up at 
the door and will be limited to three minutes.

DATES: The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, starting 
at 7:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the Cabrillo College, 500 
Building, Room 507, 6500 Soquel Drive, Aptos, California, 95003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron King at (408) 647-4257 or 
Elizabeth Moore at (301) 713-3141.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429, Marine Sanctuary 
Program)

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
W. Stanley Wilson,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 95-6642 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Basil Hedge, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), rendered November 19, 1986, convicting him, in absentia, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

The Trial Justice committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, a verdict sheet *468containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon *(see,*CPL 310.20 [2]), but also the elements of those charges and parenthetical statements with regard to each charge *(see, People v Nimmons,*72 NY2d 830; *People v Owens,*69 NY2d 585; *People v Crosby,*150 AD2d 478).

The Trial Justice also committed error by failing to include in its charge on the so-called "drug factory” presumption the statutory language of Penal Law § 220.25 (2) relating to one of the elements necessary to trigger the presumption. The court failed to include the element pertaining to the "intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or otherwise prepare for sale” the narcotics (Penal Law § 220.25 [2]). As such, the charge was defective and a new trial is warranted.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 In connection with the Annual Report of General Growth
Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John Bucksbaum, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, do hereby certify, 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.

/s/:  John Bucksbaum
---------------------------------------------
John Bucksbaum
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7332]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Second Meeting of the Semiconductor Technology Council

ACTION: Notice: Change of meeting location.

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

SUMMARY: ARPA published a notice on March 16, 1995 (60 FR 24271). There 
is a change of location and time of the open session. In all other 
respects the notice is unchanged. The open session will be held from 
3:30 to 4:00 p.m.

DATES: March 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1450, Arlington, VA 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Lance Glassner, Director, ARPA/ESTO, 3701 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA 22203-1714; telephone: 703/696-2213.

    Dated: March 21, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-7332 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with Spectrum Group International, Inc.'s (the “Company”) annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 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.








Date:  March 3, 2011/s/ Gregory N. RobertsName:  Gregory N. RobertsTitle:    President & Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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-2018-0025-3874

Yaesu USA 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
#### Allen L. CRUMP, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Diane F. CRUMP, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 68184.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 16, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 15,1996.

W. Morris Taylor, William K. Meehan, Clayton, for appellant.

John W. Hammon, Brian K. Hammon, Hillsboro, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Husband filed a motion to modify the dissolution decree. Wife did not respond, and, following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, wife filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which the trial court denied.

*32In her appeal, wife alleges the trial court erred when it (1) denied her motion to set aside the default judgment, and (2) found a substantial and continuing change in circumstances to support a termination of her maintenance. We disagree and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,833
<SECURITIES>                                    22,976
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (109)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,161
<PP&E>                                          26,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,990)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        214
<COMMON>                                         1,970
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,507
<SALES>                                         26,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,597
<CGS>                                           21,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,854)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,854)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.90)  
        

</TABLE>