alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen D. Rubin, thePresident of Vita Food Products, Inc., certify that:

 

1.             I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vita Food Products, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

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

 

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

 

c)             Disclosed inthis quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)             Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)            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:       November 14, 2005

 
| By:    | /s/ Stephen  D. Rubin           |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Stephen  D. Rubin               |   |
|   | *President*                     |   |
|   | (*Principal Executive Officer*) |   |

 

----
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 426,712 21,237 48,280 49,588 81,295 58,13Number of loans 10,474 3,814 3,231 1,451 1,212 40Weighted average maturity (months)1 33.11 11.01 13.23 25.71 25.00 24.7

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 14.53 6.57 8.24 15.62 14.19 7.8

Weighted average risk rating3 2.34 2.62 2.54 2.73 2.69 2.6

Weighted average interest rate4 6.45 6.87 6.77 6.26 6.42 6.3

 Standard error5 .06 .20 .11 .12 .12 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.98 7.64 7.50 6.76 6.65 6.6 25th percentile 5.90 6.15 6.14 5.75 6.01 5.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.04 6.67 7.03 6.98 5.99 7.5 Other livestock 6.67 7.69 6.63 5.95 7.25 6.1 Other current operating expenses7 6.41 6.51 6.70 6.10 6.36 6.3

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.78 8.30 7.02 6.86 6.41 6.7 Farm real estate 6.09 7.52 7.05 6.98 5.98 5.9 Other8 7.02 7.74 6.94 6.05 6.82 6.2

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 42.27 41.06 34.05 47.93 37.38 56.8 Under commitment 54.82 60.05 51.04 51.54 47.88 40.2 Callable 28.01 23.12 23.02 21.85 35.79 39.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.91 5.98 7.78 8.11 7.09 3.3 Other livestock 5.79 13.39 8.06 13.52 8.86 6.9 Other current operating expenses7 59.68 68.64 67.52 57.68 54.31 74.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.06 8.38 12.25 10.50 10.36 7.5 Farm real estate 8.63 1.89 1.71 3.57 9.67 4.0 Other8 9.92 1.73 2.68 6.62 9.70 3.2

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 19.21 9.56 7.28 13.50 16.70 24.2 Other 79.05 81.58 88.79 85.60 81.15 73.2 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 99 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 99

   Commending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln volleyball team for 
      winning the NCAA Division I Women's Volleyball Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2007

  Mr. Smith of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Fortenberry, and Mr. Terry) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln volleyball team for 
      winning the NCAA Division I Women's Volleyball Championship.

Whereas the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Husker volleyball team won the 2006 
        NCAA Division I Women's Volleyball National Championship at the Qwest 
        Center in Omaha, Nebraska, on December 16, 2006;
Whereas Husker junior Sarah Pavan was chosen as the Nation's top collegiate 
        female volleyball player, winning the 2006-07 Honda Sports Award for 
        volleyball;
Whereas Pavan was named the ESPN the Magazine Academic All-American of the Year, 
        becoming Nebraska's 234th Academic All-American and the program's 29th 
        Academic All-American in volleyball, totals that lead the Nation;
Whereas the Huskers completed the 2006 season with a record of 33-1;
Whereas Husker head coach John Cook has led the team to 3 national 
        championships;
Whereas the Husker volleyball team made its sixth appearance in the NCAA finals;
Whereas the 2006 Huskers are only the third team in the history of the NCAA to 
        lead the American Volleyball Coaches Association poll for an entire 
        season;
Whereas the entire Husker volleyball team should be commended for its 
        determination, work ethic, attitude, and heart;
Whereas the University of Nebraska is building an impressive legacy of 
        excellence in its volleyball program; and
Whereas the University of Nebraska volleyball players have brought great honor 
        to themselves, their families, their university, and the State of 
        Nebraska: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Husker 
        volleyball team for winning the 2006 NCAA Division I Women's 
        Volleyball National Championship; and
            (2) recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches, 
        students, and staff whose hard work and dedication made the 
        Championship possible.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned, Denise
Hawkins, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Denise Hawkins 
Denise Hawkins
Vice President and Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  November 9, 2005

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, May 4-8, 200Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,039,501 36,117 78,177 101,321 119,851 241,6Number of loans 19,060 6,795 5,144 2,996 1,802 1,60Weighted average maturity (months)1 17.94 10.46 10.46 11.70 13.64 26.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 3.23 2.51 2.61 3.37 3.61 6.4

Weighted average risk rating3 3.34 3.06 3.17 3.14 3.31 3.

Weighted average interest rate4 4.41 5.38 5.14 4.92 4.79 4. Standard error5 .23 .09 .20 .19 .21 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.53 6.16 6.09 6.00 6.13 5. 25th percentile 3.25 4.77 4.29 4.04 3.43 3. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.47 5.26 4.97 5.50 4.48 4. Other livestock 3.60 4.84 4.23 4.08 3.77 3. Other current operating expenses7 4.74 5.43 5.34 5.18 5.18 4.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.39 7.41 5.66 5.26 5.63 5. Farm real estate 5.41 6.95 5.79 4.17 5.63 5. Other8 3.62 4.09 4.01 3.68 3.47 3.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 86.73 84.40 84.29 82.38 82.48 83.7 Under commitment 82.91 84.76 80.67 79.82 78.83 74.7 Callable 23.31 27.61 25.35 24.86 27.06 29.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.68 4.77 4.77 5.26 7.43 6.7 Other livestock 6.11 4.96 4.54 4.95 5.61 9. Other current operating expenses7 57.76 76.39 73.23 70.42 59.78 51.4 Farm machinery and equipment 2.83 4.30 4.06 4.04 6.18 4. Farm real estate 3.25 1.09 1.84 .37 3.32 5.7 Other8 25.37 8.49 11.56 14.96 17.67 22.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 10.71 5.19 7.41 8.68 9.27 15. Other 84.85 90.79 89.65 89.12 85.59 80. Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          59,784
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                       700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,380
<PP&E>                                           7,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,337
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,605
<SALES>                                         17,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,868
<CGS>                                            2,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### Donald R. Strain, Appellant, v Richard C. Strain, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 479]

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of shares of a closely-*491held corporation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated May 22, 2001, which, among other things, granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report, recommending a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an enforceable agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the conclusion that the writings the plaintiff relied on to satisfy the statute of frauds (see UCC former § 8-319 [a]) failed to establish that the parties agreed on certain essential terms of the alleged agreement (see *Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.,*305 NY 48; *Kobre v Instrument Sys. Corp.,*54 AD2d 625, 626, *affd*43 NY2d 862). The record also supports the conclusion that the actions the plaintiff highlighted to apply the doctrine of part performance were not “unequivocally referable” to the alleged agreement *(Anostario v Vicinanzo,*59 NY2d 662, 664; see *Goldfinger v Brown,*169 AD2d 702, 703). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed the Referee’s report *(see Wilshire Credit Corp. v 14 First St. Corp.,*289 AD2d 229). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
(January 17, 2006)

#### Alberta Albright, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[807 NYS2d 146]

*578In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 18, 2004, which denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it or, alternatively, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

The City of New York established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it never received prior written notice of the defect in the roadway that allegedly caused the plaintiffs fall *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]).

In opposition, the plaintiff claimed that the City created the alleged dangerous condition. However, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition was created through the sort of “affirmative act of negligence” contemplated *by Amabile v City of Buffalo*(93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City *(see Gold v County of Westchester,*15 AD3d 439 [2005]; *Bielecki v City of New York,*14 AD3d 301 [2005]; *Corey v Town of Huntington,*9 AD3d 345 [2004]; *cf. Abreu v City of New York,*14 AD3d 469 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Defense Contract Audit Agency, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Performance Review Boards. The Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and make recommendations to the Director, DCAA, regarding final performance ratings and performance awards for DCAA SES members. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 30, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra L. Burrell, Chief, Human Resources Management Division, Defense Contract Audit Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2135, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, (703) 767-1039. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DCAA career executives appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. Appointees will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice. 

## Headquarters Performance Review Board 

Mr. Kenneth Saccoccia, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, DCAA, Chairperson;

Mr. Thomas Peters, Director, Field Detachment, DCAA, member;

Ms. Karen K. Cash, Assistant Director, Operations, DCAA, member. 

## Regional Performance Review Board 

Mr. Edward Nelson, Regional Director, Northeastern Region, chairperson;

Mr. Christopher Andrezze, Regional Director, Western Region, DCAA, member;

Mr. David Eck, Regional Director, Central Region, DCAA. 

Dated: September 22, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. E8-22869 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

PETER SCHATZBERG, DC AND 

PHILADELPHIA PAIN MANAGEMENT, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (BEMIS COMPANY, INC.), 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 147 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,461
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,986
<PP&E>                                          78,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               35
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,220
<SALES>                                         13,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,965
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,226)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>