alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven D. Hunt, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

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

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

4. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this 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 thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe 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.

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  |  /s/ Steven D. Hunt                |
|     |  | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: November 23, 2005 

** **
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1935

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

RAMON E. MEJIAS-NEGRON,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Ramon E. Mejias-Negron on brief pro se.

Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. VegaPacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson PerezSosa, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

March 19, 2002
-2-

Per Curiam. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

(IFP), Ramon Mejias Negron (Mejias) appeals from the district

court’s denial of his motion to hold the U.S. Marshal in contempt

of court. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his

subsequent motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) seeking

findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of his

contempt motion. 

Mejias’s argument that the U.S. Marshal is guilty of

contempt of court because he failed to obey the district court’s

directive in its final judgment that Mejias be returned to the

federal prison facility in Rochester, Minnesota, is unavailing.

A district court does not have the authority to specify a

particular prison in which the defendant is to serve his or her

sentence. United States v. Wells, 766 F.2d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1985).

The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP),

designates the place of confinement. See United States v. Wilson,

503 U.S. 329, 331, (1992). Accordingly, Mejias has not established

contempt of court, and the district court did not err by denying

his motion.

Furthermore, the district court did not err in denying

Mejias’s motion pursuant to Rule 52(a) either because the court was

not required to make findings of fact and draw conclusions of law
-3-

regarding Mejias’s contempt motion. Rule 52(a) states: “Findings

of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of

motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided

in subdivision (c) of this rule.” Because the exception of Rule

52(c) does not apply to the present facts, it is clear that under

Rule 52(a) the district court did not err in summarily denying as

moot Mejias’s contempt motion without opinion. See Enzo Biochem,

Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of CompX International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 3, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Bowers, Vice Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Darryl R. Halbert, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











By: /s/David A. Bowers


David A. Bowers


Vice Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer











By: /s/Darryl R. Halbert


Darryl R. Halbert


Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller








Date: May 3, 2010











Note:  The certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.
Opinion issued May 19, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00819-CV

———————————

MARK GROBA, Appellant

V.

GERMAN AMERICAN FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2009-16387

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Mark Groba, has neither established indigence, nor paid, or made 

arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did 

not adequately respond. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 
2

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). We dismiss any pending motions 

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massegale, and Huddle.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Kim, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Cogent, 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.

Date: April 26, 2007



/S/    PAUL
KIMPaul KimChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3923 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3923

  To designate the Federal building located at 228 Walnut Street, in 
  Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2004

 Mr. Shuster introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 228 Walnut Street, in 
  Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 228 Walnut Street, in Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``Ronald Reagan 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald Reagan 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas Greer *v.*Thomas Fleming.

Bills and Notes — Partnership—Note Merges Account — Void Note.

Appellant could not repudiate the note because it was executed after tbe dissolution of tbe firm and also rely upon it as a bar to tbe action on tbe account. If tbe note was void tbe account was not merged.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 22, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Hunter was a competent witness in behalf of appellee. *Todd v. Luckett,*18 *B. Monroe*130. Besides this, the books of I. G. Hunter & Co., which were introduced by the appellant, sufficiently establish that he was a member of the firm at the time the coal is proven to: have been delivered by the witness Patterson.

*662
      *Benton, for appellant.*

*Carlisle, for appellee.*

The court properly allowed the amended petition to be filed. Appellant could not repudiate the note, because it was executed after the dissolution of the firm, and also rely upon it as a bar to an action on the account for the coal. *Daniel v. Toney, 2nd Metcalfe*524.

If the note was void, then the account was not merged; if it was not, then appellee was entitled to judgment on his original petition.

'Perceiving no available error, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<CIK>                0000835544    
<NAME>               TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FUNDING INC. 
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
                                                      
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995 
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1995 
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1995 
<CASH>                                        108,769 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,113 
<ALLOWANCES>                                    5,354 
<INVENTORY>                                     6,950 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,175 
<PP&E>                                        902,427 
<DEPRECIATION>                                207,825 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                843,725 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          73,039 
<BONDS>                                       643,134 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  843,725 
<SALES>                                       417,296 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              464,815 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 238,768<F1> 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              106,124<F2> 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                3,825 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             88,864 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,708) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,708) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,708) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 
<FN>
<F1>  Includes gaming, lodging, food and beverage and other
<F2>  Includes general & administrative and depreciation and amortization
</FN>
                                   

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.4

Eastern Division

International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and

Transportation Workers − Transportation Division

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04318

Honorable John J.

Tharp Jr.

Union Pacific Railroad Company

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, March 21, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: For the reasons explained

in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, the defendant's partial motion to dismiss

for lack of subject−matter jurisdiction [6] is denied. A status hearing is set for 10:00 a.m.

on 04/06/2022. Directions for counsel and the parties for participating in the telephonic

hearing will be provided by email prior to the hearing. Counsel are instructed to use those

directions, which require logging into the call via a web site. Members of the public and

media who wish to listen to this hearing may call in to the hearing by dialing

877−848−7030 and, upon prompting, entering the access code: 5784864. Persons granted

remote access to proceedings are reminded that this is a court proceeding and should be

treated as such; phones should be muted at all times unless you are authorized to

participate in the hearing. In addition, the general prohibition against photographing,

recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings applies. Violation of these prohibitions

may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted

entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed

necessary by the Court. Mailed notice(air, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04318 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:92
H. Res. 521

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 10, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2863) to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

to clarify restrictions under that Act on baiting, to facilitate

acquisition of migratory bird habitat, and for other purposes.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now

printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consider-
2

•HRES 521 EH

ation of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the

basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone

until a time during further consideration in the Committee of

the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment;

and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another

electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the

minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series

of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
3

•HRES 521 EH

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1

February 28, 2006

Board of Directors
Nalco Holdings LLC
1601 W. Diehl Road
Naperville, Illinois  60563

Dear Sirs:

Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Nalco Holdings LLC included
in its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 describes
a change in the measurement date for its pension and other postretirement
benefit plans from year-end to November 30. Management believes that the newly
adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because it (i)
improves the Company's control procedures by allowing additional time for
management to review the completeness and accuracy of the actuarial pension
measurements as well as evaluating those results in making its funding decisions
and (ii) allows the Company to fully address this matter before the Company's
personnel are immersed in the year-end financial statement close process and the
conclusion of the initial evaluation of internal controls over financial
reporting. The Company has stated that the new measurement date will allow the
Company adequate time to review its actuarial valuations prior to future
Securities and Exchange Commission accelerated filing requirements. In
accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company
officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the
decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method. However, based on our review and
discussion and with reliance on management's business judgment, we concur that
the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable to the Company's
circumstances.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
```
**EXHIBIT 35.3**

** **

ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE

 

GE DEALER FLOORPLAN MASTER NOTE TRUST

 

March 29, 2016

 

The undersigned, aduly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Commercial Distribution Finance, LLC (“CDF”), as the sub-servicer (the“Sub-Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Sub-Servicing Agreement dated as of August 10, 2006 (asmay be further amended and supplemented from time to time, the “Agreement”), between General Electric CapitalCorporation and CDF, does hereby certify that:

 

1.         A review of the activities of Sub-Servicerduring the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “reporting period”), and of its performance under the Agreement,has been made under my supervision.

 

2.         To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review, Sub-Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reportingperiod.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has duly executed this certificate the date first above written.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 261 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 8, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2158) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and 
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. 
All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration 
are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```