alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1  302 CERTIFICATION  I, Iryna Clark, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this yearly report on Form 10-K/A of Lockbox Link, Inc.;  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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), 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. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. 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  d. 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. 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 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 controls over financial reporting.  Date: May 19, 2017  /s/Iryna Clark Iryna Clark Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
584 A.2d 213

#### EVAN SPALT AND JAMES JENKS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*206, 567 A.2d 264)
# Stone Mine Massive Pillar Collapses - Safety Alert

Safety Alert Pillar Collapses.pdf(4.13 MB)

 

 

Address Potential for Future Massive Pillar Collapses:

•    Properly design pillars for benching (width-to-height ratio >0.8 and assess pillar stability)•    Maintain planned dimensions•    Account for pillar raveling or blasting overbreak•    Assess geologic features in the pillar

Identify At-Risk Areas:

•    Recognize signs, such as spalling and hourglassing, that may indicate a pillar is overstressed•    Assess benched areas and verify pillar dimensions•    Evaluate potential air blast pathways•    Reduce exposure of miners to airpaths•    Protect mine infrastructure
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

DIVISION FIVE

KARMANN CHRISTNER, ) No. ED102076

)

Claimant/Appellant, )

)

vs. ) Appeal from the Labor and

) Industrial Relations Commission

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and )

DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, )

) Filed: December 23, 2014

Respondents. )

Claimant, Karmann Christner, has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial 

Relations Commission's (Commission) decision concerning his claim for unemployment 

benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant

was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed to the Appeals 

Tribunal of the Division, which dismissed her appeal. She then filed an application for review 

with the Commission, which affirmed the order of the Appeals Tribunal. The Commission 

mailed its decision to Claimant on August 14, 2014. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this 

Court.

This Court issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why his appeal should not 

be dismissed as untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the order. 
2

The notice of appeal to this court was not filed within the time limits set forth in section 

288.210, RSMo 2000, which provides: “Within twenty days after a decision of the commission 

has become final, the director or any party aggrieved by such decision may appeal the decision to 

the appellate court . . . .” The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to 

the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Secretary to the Commission certified she 

mailed its decision to Claimant on August 14, 2014. Under Chapter 288, Claimant’s notice of 

appeal to this Court was due on or before Monday, September 15, 2014. Sections 288.200.2, 

288.210, 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant sent the notice of appeal by facsimile to the 

Commission on September 24, 2014. Thus, the notice of appeal is untimely. 

The unemployment statutes fail to provide a procedure for filing a late notice of appeal. 

Ross v. Division of Employment Sec., 332 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). While there are 

procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, such procedures do not apply 

to special statutory proceedings, such as unemployment matters under Chapter 288. Heffner v. 

Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Therefore, this 

court’s only option is to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________

ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE

LISA VAN AMBURG, J. and 

PHILIP M. HESS, J., Concurs.
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Atul Sabharwal, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Snipp Interactive Inc.;



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   May 16, 2017





/s/  Atul Sabharwal

Atul Sabharwal,

Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Samuel B. Hay, III, Chief Executive Officer of Main Street Banks, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                                            
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ SAMUEL B. HAY, III                     
|                  |  |     |  | Samuel B. Hay, III, Chief Executive Officer



26
Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Benjamin A. Atkins, certify that: 

 

|  | 1. |  | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of NextDecade Corporation; and |
|--|----|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 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.  |
|--|----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |   |   |                                                   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   |   |                                                   |
| Date: April 10, 2019 |   |   |   | /s/ Benjamin A. Atkins                                 |
|                 |   |   |   | Benjamin A. Atkins                                     |
|                 |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
585 A.2d 410

#### 1530 OWNERS CORPORATION v. BOROUGH OF FORT LEE.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.11

                      Summary of Approved Changes to the
              Blue Cross -- Controlled Affiliate License Agreement
<TABLE>
   <C>            <C>           <C>
      Action        Effective                               Explanation
                      Date

   Replace the    March 10,      Amended Standards 6(C) and 9 - Added the Electronic Claims Routing
   entire Exhibit 2000           Process ("ECRP") as a required National Program.
   A with the new
   Exhibit A.

                  N/A            Amended Standard 6(I) - Eliminated reporting requirements that
                                 have sunset.



                  June 16, 2000  Amended Standards 6(I) and 7(B):

                                 Eliminated the Annual Financial Forecast Required Report filed by
                                 Controlled Affiliate Licensees.



   Replace page   June 16, 2000  Amendment to Paragraph 14A:
   11
                                -    Revised double three-quarter voting requirement
</TABLE>
Exhibit 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF PROQR THERAPEUTICS N.V.

The following is a list of subsidiaries of the Company (and jurisdiction of incorporation) as of December 31, 2016.



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics Holding B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics I B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics II B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics III B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics IV B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics VI B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics VII B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics VIII B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics IX B.V. (the Netherlands);
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  |  | ProQR Therapeutics I Inc. (Delaware, United States).
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 13.2



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



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Advanced Accelerator Applications S.A. (the “Company”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”), I, Heinz Mäusli, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 29, 2017



|By: | /s/ Heinz Mäusli               | 
|--- | ------------------------------ | 
|    | Name:	Heinz Mäusli             | 
|    | Title:	Chief Financial Officer |
585 A.2d 390

#### WEST JERSEY HEALTH SYSTEMS-EASTERN DIVISION v. TOWNSHIP OF VOORHEES.

October 10, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7354 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit certain unfair credit practices, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2018 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. SCHNEIDER, and Mr. 

JONES of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit certain 

unfair credit practices, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Lend5 ing Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lend8 ing Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7354 IH

1 ‘‘§ 140B. Unfair credit practices 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In connection with the extension 

3 of credit in or affecting commerce, as defined in section 

4 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44), 

5 no creditor may directly or indirectly take or receive from 

6 a borrower an obligation that constitutes or contains a 

7 cognovit or confession of judgment (for purposes other 

8 than executory process in the State of Louisiana), warrant 

9 of attorney, or other waiver of the right to notice and the 

10 opportunity to be heard in the event of suit or process 

11 thereon.’’. 

12 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

13 Section 135 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1645) 

14 is amended by striking ‘‘and 134’’ and inserting ‘‘134, and 

15 140B’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# DATES AND TIMES:

Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 10 a.m.; and Wednesday, October 20, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

# STATUS:

Closed.

## Matters To Be Considered

### Tuesday, October 19, at 10 a.m. (Closed)

1. Strategic Issues.

2. Pricing.

3. Financial Matters.

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

### Wednesday, October 20, at 8:30 a.m. (Closed)—if needed Continuation of Tuesday's agenda.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-25667 Filed 10-7-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 13,656.

#### The City of Huntington *v.*Hawley et al.

*Pleading-.*— Complaint.— Evidence.— Demurrer.— *Harmless Error.*— Where the same evidence can be introduced, and the same relief granted, under the second as under the first paragraph of complaint, there is no available error in sustaining a demurrer to the first paragraph, if the demurrer to the second is overruled.

Supreme *Court.*— Reversal *of*Judgment.— *Weight of Evidence.*— Where there is evidence tending to support the finding of the court, the Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment on the weight of the evidence.

*Evidence.*— Town *Plat.*— Exclusion *of.*— Harmless *Error.*— When the record of an alleged plat of a town, without date, acknowledgment, or date of recording, is refused admission in evidence, but another plat, conceded to be identical with the one excluded, is admitted, there is no error in excluding it.

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

*503
      *B. F. Ibach, J. G. Ibach*and *L. P. Milligan,*for appellant.

*J. B. Kenner*and *J. L Dille,*for appellees.

Olds, J.

This is an action by the appellant against the appellees to enjoin the appellees from interfering with or desecrating certain real estate described in the complaint, alleged to have been dedicated to and accepted by the city as a cemetery, and within the city limits of the city of Huntingtpn.

The first error assigned is sustaining a demurrer to the first paragraph of the complaint. The second paragraph of the complaint is substantially the same as the first. The same evidence could be introduced and the same relief granted under the second as under the first, and the demurrer was overruled to the second, issues joined and trial had upon it, and there is no available error in sustaining the demurrer to the first paragraph.

The only other error assigned is the overruling of the appellant’s motion for a new trial. The first question presented on the overruling of the motion for a new trial is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court. There is evidence tending to support the finding of the court, and this court will not reverse a judgment on the weight of the evidence.

The next question presented is the ruling of the court in refusing to admit in evidence the record of a plat purporting to be a plat of the town of Huntington. The plat does not bear any date; it is not acknowledged, nor does the date of its recording appear, and another plat conceded to be identical with the one excluded is admitted in evidence. There was no error in excluding it.

It is next contended that the court erred in admitting in evidence a deed from Sarah M. Tipton *et al.,*being all the heirs of John Tipton, senior, and John Tipton, junior, former owners of the land, to the appellees for the land in *504controversy. There was no error in the admission of this deed in evidence.

Filed Oct. 31, 1889.

There is no error in the record for which the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.