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

---

Exhibit 13.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report
of Magal Security System Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Izhar Dekel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

/s/ Izhar Dekel*
Izhar Dekel
Chief Executive Officer

June 28, 2007

*     The originally executed copy of
this Certification will be maintained at the Companys offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.



---

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 8
OF FORM 10-K/A FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          139000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1440000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    800000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                804000
<PP&E>                                         2240000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  311000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2809000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5172000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         17000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2380000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2809000
<SALES>                                        1340000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1340000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2223000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3622000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              664000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4759000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (4759000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4759000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.00)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5445 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5445

  To provide for the designation of the Guam and Western Pacific USDA 
     Rural Development office as the representative of USDA Rural 
Development in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
           American Samoa, and the Freely Associated States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2023

  Mr. Moylan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the designation of the Guam and Western Pacific USDA 
     Rural Development office as the representative of USDA Rural 
Development in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
           American Samoa, and the Freely Associated States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Designating the Guam and Western 
Pacific USDA Rural Development Office Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF THE GUAM AND WESTERN PACIFIC USDA RURAL 
              DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.

    Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Undersecretary for Rural Development 
shall designate the Guam and Western Pacific USDA Rural Development 
office to be the representative of USDA Rural Development in Guam, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of 
Micronesia, and shall delegate to that office the same rights and 
responsibilities as are delegated to the USDA Rural Development office 
for any State.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 7, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40450 Summary Calendar

COY LYNN OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus SUZANNE HASTINGS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(5:02-CV-67)

-------------------- Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Petitioner-Appellant Coy Owens, federal prisoner # 04702-078, appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Owens is currently serving a 210-month sentence on his
convictions for multiple counts of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit
mail fraud, a iding and abetting, and use of fire to commit a felony. Owens argues that the district court erred in determining
that his defective indictment claim did not meet the criteria for2

bringing a claim pursuant to the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.

Owens’s rel iance on J ones v. United States , 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 (1999), does not satisfy the requirements for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

See Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.
2001). Owens’s arguments that the district court should have transferred his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to us for consideration

as a 28 U.S. C. § 2255 motion, and that the “savings clause”
constitutes a Suspension of the Writ, also fail. S ee ReyesRequena , 243 F.3d at 901 n.19; Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). Owens has not briefed his arguments related to violations of Accardi v. Shaughnessy , 347 U.S. 260 (1954), and the fair warning
doctrine. Accordingly, these arguments are abandoned on appeal.

See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,________________________ The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A24E0033. E. I. DU PONT NEMOURS AND COMPANY n/k/a EIDP, INC. et al. v. CITY OF ROME, GEORGIA et al. The appellants have filed an emergency motion with this Court seeking supersedeas pending appeal of a November 17, 2023 order of the Superior Court of Floyd County. In that order, the Superior Court rejected the appellants’ argument that certain information contained in a settlement agreement between the appellants and the City of Rome, Georgia was exempt from public disclosure under the trade secrets exception to the Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (34). The superior court dismissed the appellants’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and ordered the City of Rome to disclose the information by 12:00 p.m. on November 22, 2023. The appellants then filed a notice of appeal of the November 17, 2023 order. After consideration of the appellants’ motion for supersedeas, the motion is hereby GRANTED . The superior court’s order of November 17, 2023, is stayed and superseded pending the completion of the appeal or further order of this Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,___________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk. November 20, 2023

11/20/2023
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.01

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert M. Alderman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC;

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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 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: August 12, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ ROBERT M. ALDERMAN
   ----------------------
Robert M. Alderman
Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4142

SHERWOOD RUTHERFORD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-328)

Submitted: September 5, 2002

Decided: September 12, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

W. Reynolds Williams, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A.,

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Sherwood Rutherford appeals his conviction and sentence of fiftyseven months imprisonment following his guilty plea to distribution

and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Rutherford’s attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting

there was not a sufficient factual basis for the finding of guilt and the

computation of relevant conduct, but stating that, in his view, there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Advised of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief, Rutherford has not done so. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm. 

Rutherford contests the facts supporting his finding of guilt. A

valid guilty plea constitutes admission of the material elements of the

offense and precludes a challenge of the factual merits of the charge.

See United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490-91 (4th Cir. 1993). We

have reviewed the record and the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and find

Rutherford’s guilty plea was valid. As to the determination of relevant

conduct, Rutherford withdrew his objections to the presentence

report’s attribution of relevant conduct, and he fails to allege on

appeal any specific facts contesting the accuracy of the amount of

drugs attributed to him. See United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162

(4th Cir. 1990). 

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

Rutherford’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw

from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. 

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

2 UNITED STATES v. RUTHERFORD
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5150

Enerpac:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8968]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Compass Bancshares, Inc.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and 
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than May 5, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Compass Bancshares, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama; to merge with The 
American Bancorporation of the South, Merritt Island, Florida, and 
thereby indirectly acquire The American Bank of the South, Merritt 
Island, Florida.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Texas Financial Bancorporation, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota to 
acquire Delaware Financial Bancorporation, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; 
to become a bank holding company; by acquiring 100 percent of the 
voting shares of First Bank, Houston, Texas.
    2. Midland American Bancshares, Inc., Midland, Texas; and MAB 
Bancshares of Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware to become bank 
holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Midland American Bank, Midland, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 6, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8968 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
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-2018-0025-7329

Nissan North America, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Report on
Form 10-Q of Foundation Coal Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2007, I, James F. Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of Foundation Coal Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Foundation Coal Corporation.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                         
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  | /s/ JAMES F. ROBERTS                    
|                      |  | James F. Roberts Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6936

Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P.: 

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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