alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K REPORT 
OF 
SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTD PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. SS.SS. 1350(a) and (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. SS.SS. 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2006 of Security Capital Assurance Ltd (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | Dated: March 14, 2007                 | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| |                                       | 
| |                                       | 
| | /s/ PAUL S. GIORDANO                  | 
| | PAUL S. GIORDANO                      | 
| | PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER | 
| | SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTD        | 
| |                                       | 
| |                                       | 
| |                                       | 
| |                                       | 
| | Dated: March 14, 2007                 | 
| |                                       | 
| |                                       | 
| | /s/ DAVID P. SHEA                     | 
| | DAVID P. SHEA                         | 
| | EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF    | 
| | FINANCIAL OFFICER                     | 
| | SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTD        | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Security Capital Assurance Ltd and will be retained by Security Capital Assurance Ltd and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AUDLEY CASANOVA, a/k/a Robert King,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-95-108, CA-99-1100-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Audley Casanova, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Audley Casanova seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Casanova, Nos. CR-95-108; CA-99-1100-1

(M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 21, 2001, entered Mar. 23, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
216 So.2d 302

#### Robert GRAHAM v. STATE.

3 Div. 396.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 12, 1968.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Smith & Cruse, Montgomery, opposed.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Petition of the State by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Graham v. State, 44 Ala.App. 554, 216 So.2d 298.

Writ denied.

■LAWSON, SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-74V 

Filed: March 8, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

CHERYL WELCH, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On January 16, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered a shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she 

received on September 29, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 5, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
for a SIRVA Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that entitlement to compensation is 

appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   Orient Paper, Inc. Science Park Nanhuan Road Xushui County Hebei Province 072550 China   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-150394) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-163340) of Orient Paper, Inc (the Company) of
our reports dated March 28, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.        /s/ BDO Limited Hong Kong, March 28, 2010
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 30, 2011  | By:    | /s/ Anthony P. Costa                                 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   | Anthony P. Costa, Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                       |   |                                                      |   |
|                       |   |                                                      |   |
| Date: March 30, 2011  | By:    | /s/ Thomas Sperzel                                        |   |
|                       |   | Thomas Sperzel, Chief Financial Officer                   |   |
#### Loraine D. POOL; Kevin D. Pool, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a/k/a State Farm Insurance, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1696.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Ronnie P. King, Ronnie P. King, P.A., Roxboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. R. Scott Brown, Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Loraine and Kevin Pool appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in their action for breach of contract under a fire insurance policy. We affirm.

State Farm moved for summary judgment and the Pools did not respond. The district court found, as a matter of law and upon the facts presented by State Farm, that the Pools had not complied with the policy requirements and that compliance is a condition precedent to bringing suit against the insurer. *See Fineberg v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,*113 N.C.App. 545, 438 S.E.2d 754, 755 (N.C.App.1994). Failure to comply with conditions precedent “bars recovery as well as the right to bring suit under the policy.” *Id.*We agree with the district court’s conclusion that State Farm was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts presented in the motion for summary judgment. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e); *Custer v. Pan American Life Insurance Co.,*12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten*142tions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Richard A. Horowitz, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of P & F Industries, Inc.

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

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

c)     Disclosed in this quarterly 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 the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that 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.

 

 
| August 13, 2003 |                        | /s/ Richard A. Horowitz |   |
|-----------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Date            | Richard A. Horowitz         |                    |
|            | Principal Executive Officer |                    |

 

1
#### Morris Weldon Garrett v. State.

No. 24735.

April 5, 1950.

*483No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The indictment charged appellant with the felony offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated.

He waived a trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court.

The judgment entered by the court condemned appellant to confinement in the penitentiary “for a term of not less than one nor more than three years.”

Upon that judgment, sentence was suspended and appellant placed upon probation.

Subsequently, upon motion of the state, the probation was revoked by the judge, and the sentence became final.

The judgment of the court in the instant case also had the effect of a jury’s verdict. Having fixed appellant’s punishment at an indefinite term of not less than one nor more than three years’ confinement in the penitentiary, such judgment is vague and indefinite and is void. Ex Parte East, 154 Texas Crim. Rep. 123, 225 S. W. 2d 833.

There being no valid judgment in the case, the sentence passed herein is set aside and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Opinion approved by the court.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              
                  Washington, D. C.  20549
                              
                              
                          FORM 10-Q
                              
      Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
           of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                              
            For the Quarter Ended March 31, 1997
                              
                 Commission File No. 1-3660
                              
                        Owens Corning
                              
                  One Owens Corning Parkway
                              
                     Toledo, Ohio  43659
                              
                  Area Code (419) 248-8000
                              
                   A Delaware Corporation
                              
        I.R.S. Employer Identification No. 34-4323452


Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has  filed
all  reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d)  of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding  12
months  (or for such shorter period that the Registrant  was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject  to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                    Yes / X /     No /   /
                              
      Shares of common stock, par value $.10 per share,
                outstanding at March 31, 1997
                              
                         53,263,731
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132662 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: 132662 COA: 263593 Macomb CC: 04-004368-FH SHAWN DAVID RENAUD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2006 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.

s0319 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.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 1047(A)



		

			Exhibit 10.47

		




		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			PERFORMANCE-BASED SHARE UNIT GRANT
		

		
			 
		

		
			February 27, 2014
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear:
		

		
			 
		

		
			Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Aqua America Inc. 2009 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”), you have been granted performance-based share units as outlined below and in the attached Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Granted To:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Grant Date:

					
					
						February 27, 2014

				
	
					
						Target Award:

					
					
						__________ Shares

				
	
					
						Vesting Date:

					
					
						February 27, 2017

				
	
					
						Performance Period:

					
					
						Period beginning on January 1, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2016

				
	
					
						Vesting Schedule and Performance Goals:

					
					
						The Target Award is subject to vesting based on continued service and achievement of performance goals, as set forth in the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions, including Schedule A attached thereto.

				



		
			 
		


		
			By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge and accept the award of this Performance-Based Share Unit Grant and the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein, and I agree to be bound by the terms of the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant, the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions and the Plan. I hereby agree that all decisions and determinations of the Committee (as defined in the Plan) with respect to the performance-based share units shall be final and binding.



Signature: ________________________________________    Date: __________________________
		

		 


		

			Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above, please make the appropriate corrections on this form.

		


		

			DB1/ 73876958.2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132662 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: 132662 

 COA: 263593 

Macomb CC: 04-004368-FH 

SHAWN DAVID RENAUD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0319 

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. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 634 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 634

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 202 West Washington Street, Suite 1, in Marquette, Michigan, as the 
            ``Senator Tom Casperson Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2021

Mr. Bergman (for himself, Ms. Slotkin, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Moolenaar, and 
 Mr. Meijer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 202 West Washington Street, Suite 1, in Marquette, Michigan, as the 
            ``Senator Tom Casperson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SENATOR TOM CASPERSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 202 West Washington Street, Suite 1, in Marquette, Michigan, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Senator Tom Casperson Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Senator 
Tom Casperson Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
 

 

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
I, Jimmy S.H. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to Section 906 of the *Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the*Securities Exchange Act of 1934*(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: May 10, 2005              /s/ Jimmy S.H. Lee   Jimmy S.H. Lee   Chief Executive Officer   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MercerInternational Inc. and will be retained by Mercer International Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.