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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

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

I, Michael L. Pungello, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Cornerstone 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/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 99


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


March 22, 2002


Our independent public accountant is Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"). In
connection with their audit of the consolidated financial statements of
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2001, Andersen has
represented to us that the audit was subject to Andersen's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working
on the audit, availability of national office consultation, and availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of
the audit.


SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC.
---------------------------------
(Registrant)


/s/ KEITH W. BROWN
----------------------------------------
Keith W. Brown
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer, Secretary and Director


                                      42
Exhibit 32.1





Certifications Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report (the “report”) of Sydys Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Kenneth J. Koock, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.








/s/ Kenneth J. Koock


Kenneth J. Koock


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





Date:  October 28, 2010
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.54 

AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

The Letter Agreement dated as of January 14, 2007 among AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Kindred Healthcare, Inc., PharMerica
Corporation (formerly known as Safari Holding Corporation) (collectively, the “Company”) and Gregory S. Weishar, as amended on November 13, 2007 (the “Agreement”), is further amended, effective as of March 16, 2010, as
follows: 
 1. The introductory language to Section 10(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its
entirety as follows: 
 “(i) As soon as reasonably practicable following the date that your employment
hereunder terminates (the “Termination Date”) (or, in the case of Clause (B), the date that the Annual Bonus for the year of termination is payable to other senior executives), a lump-sum cash payment in respect of each of the
following:” 
 2. Section 10(g)(v) of the Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its entirety as follows:

 “(v) “Pro-Rata Annual Bonus” shall mean: 

(A) for purposes of Section 10(c) of this Agreement, a cash amount determined by multiplying your annualized Base
Salary on the Termination Date times a fraction, the numerator of which is the excess of 365 over the number of days then remaining in the calendar year of termination, and the denominator of which is 365, and 

(B) for purposes of Section 10(a) of this Agreement, a cash amount equal to (1) the lesser of (x) your
annualized Base Salary on the Termination Date or (y) your “maximum award” earned under the Compensation Committee resolutions that establish the negative discretion approach under the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan (or its successor)
for the year of termination, determined based on actual performance during the entire year and without regard to any discretionary adjustments that have the effect of reducing the amount of such maximum award, multiplied by (2) a fraction, the
numerator of which is the excess of 365 over the number of days then remaining in the calendar year of termination, and the denominator of which is 365.” 

3. Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 

 

			
	PHARMERICA CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  

		 	[Name/Title]
	
	  

	GREGORY S. WEISHAR
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-2018-0025-7615

Hatfield Manufacturing: 

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
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS
                                OF XACT AID, INC.
                           PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS. 1350

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned
officer of Xact Aid, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

      (a)   The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
            2005 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
            13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   Information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Xact Aid, Inc. and will be retained by Xact Aid, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                        By: /s/ Federico G. Cabo
                                        ----------------------------------------
Date:  September 6, 2005                        Federico G. Cabo,
                                                Chief Executive Officer and CFO
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6485

OK International, 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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL TANEA COATS,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-116

[February 9, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018CF003020.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pablo Tapia, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ross Frank Berlin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6358

Diebold Nixdorf Incorporated:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4411

Valmet, 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
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I,Michael L. Pungello, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantof the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2006                                                                                                         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                       |
| By                                                                                                                         | /s/  MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO |   |
| Michael  L. Pungello  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Paul M. Carney, Appellant, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Tyler, J.), entered September 1, 1987, which confirmed the determination of respondent denying petitioner a line-of-duty accident disability pension and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is undisputed that petitioner suffered injuries during a *383line-of-duty accident. However, petitioner has not carried his burden of establishing proximate cause between the accident and the specific injuries claimed herein (Administrative Code of City of New York § 13-168). Nor does the record so conclusively support petitioner’s position that the accident aggravated preexisting injuries so as to entitle him to a line-of-duty accident disability pension, and as to render respondent’s determination arbitrary and capricious. *(Matter of Christian v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*83 AD2d 507, *affd*56 NY2d 841.) Respondent was entitled to rely on its Medical Board’s findings in a matter of pure medical judgment. (83 AD2d 507, 508, *supra.)*Accordingly, petitioner has failed to meet his burden and his petition was properly dismissed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith. JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8974]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 1143]


Consolidated Rail Corporation--Abandonment--Between North Warren 
and Kent, in Trumbull and Portage Counties, OH

    The Commission has issued a certificate authorizing Consolidated 
Rail Corporation to abandon its 28.95-mile rail line, known as the 
Freedom Secondary, between milepost 161.10 at North Warren and milepost 
190.05 near Kent, in Trumbull and Portage Counties, OH, subject to 
environmental, historic, labor protective, and public use conditions. 
The abandonment certificate will become effective 30 days after this 
publication unless the Commission finds that: (1) a financially 
responsible person has offered financial assistance (through subsidy or 
purchase) to enable rail service to continue; and (2) it is likely that 
the assistance would fully compensate the railroad.
    Any financial assistance offer must be filed with the Commission 
and the applicant no later than 10 days from the publication of this 
Notice. The following notation shall be typed in bold face on the lower 
left-hand corner of the envelope containing the offer: ``Office of 
Proceedings, AB-OFA''. Any offer previously made must be remade within 
this 10-day period.
    Information and procedures regarding financial assistance for 
continued rail service are contained in 49 U.S.C. 10905 and 49 CFR 
1152.27.

    Decided: March 30, 1995.
    By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Morgan, and 
Commissioners Simmons and Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8974 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ken DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 69375.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Nov. 19, 1996.

John M. Schilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Ken Dickerson, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080 RSMo 1986. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior and persistent offender under § 558.016 RSMo Cum.Supp. 1993, to ten years imprisonment to be served concurrently with a sentence imposed on a prior conviction. We affirm.

The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Corley, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of coercion in the second degree, as a lesser included offense of rape in the first degree.

The People concede that coercion in the second degree is not a lesser included offense of rape in the first degree *(see, People v Greer,*42 NY2d 170; *People v Tiedemann,*111 AD2d 280), but note that defendant requested that the court consider coercion as a lesser included offense. By asking for the court’s consideration of coercion as a lesser included offense, defendant waived the error and failed to preserve it for our review *(see, People v Williams,*95 AD2d 726, *affd*62 NY2d 275, 283).

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the court’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that the guilty verdict of coercion in the second degree was not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Although the court, as factfinder, rejected the complainant’s testimony concerning sexual intercourse, the record supports the court’s acceptance of her testimony concerning defendant’s restraint and physical attack. Because it appears that the trier of fact gave the evidence the weight it should be accorded, we affirm *(see, People v Bleakley, supra,*at 495). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—coercion, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.