alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Johan Albrecht, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of MATERIALISE NV (the company);
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: June 26, 2018



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Johan Albrecht     
|    |  | Johan Albrecht         
|    |  | Alfinco BVBA           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Lauren Wallace, Respondent, v Kristiaan F. Roberts, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 395]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lechtrecker, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated November 2, 2011, which, after a hearing,’ granted the mother’s petition for sole custody of the parties’ child and fixed a visitation schedule.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties, who were never married to each other, are the parents of a daughter, born August 3, 2010. Within approximately two months of the child’s birth, the father filed a petition for joint custody and the mother filed a petition seeking sole custody of the child. After a hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, granted the mother’s petition.

There is “no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent” (Domestic Relations Law §§ 70 [a]; 240 [1] [a]; *see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 93 [1982]; *Matter of Riccio v Riccio,*21 AD3d 1107 [2005]). The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child *(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d at 94; *Matter of Cardozo v Defreitas,*87 AD3d 1138 [2011]). “Since custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Chery v Richardson,*88 AD3d 788, 788 [2011]; see *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Here, the Family Court’s determination that the child’s best interests would be served by an award of custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see *Matter of Guzman v Pizarro,*102 AD3d 964 [2013]; *Matter of Thomas v Trice,*83 AD3d 722, 723 [2011]).

The father contends that his statutory and constitutional due process and equal protection rights were violated by certain of the Family Court’s statements and rulings during the course of the custody proceedings. Contrary to his contention, the father was afforded a full and fair hearing on the petitions.

The father’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32

Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of
the United States Code

I, Robert E. Busch, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PSE&G Transition Funding
LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of
PSE&G Transition Funding LLC on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of PSE&G Transition Funding
LLC.

| |                                                     | 
| | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Robert E. Busch                                 | 
| |                                                     | 
| | Robert E. Busch                                     | 
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer | 
| | March 20, 2006                                      | 

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMMY HOWARD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 14-0266-WS-C

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF :

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

:

Defendants.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(B) and dated December 9, 2014 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 27th day of January, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00266-WS-C Document 19 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kyle *V.*McLetchie, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 57]

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), imposed May 11, 2012, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Angiolillo, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.
#### Commonwealth *v.*M. D. Hardin.

Criminal Law — Intoxicating Liquors.

Where the proprietor of a place where intoxicating liquors are sold was present and saw his bartender sell liquor in violation of law he is guilty the same as if malting the sale himself.

APPEAL FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 5, 1876.

*George Denny, for appellant. T. E. Moss, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

The court erred in not permitting the witness, Tuttle, to answer whether, at any time within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, he had purchased spirituous liquors in defendant’s saloon, in the defendant’s presence, from his bartender.

If the defendant was present and saw his bartender sell to the witness, he is legally guilty as though he had sold the liquor himself.

Judgment *reversed,*and cause remanded for further proceedings.
##### 



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 Bay View Capital Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
Report), I, Charles G. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein. Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ Charles G. CooperCharles G. CooperPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Bay View Capital Corporation and will be retained by Bay View
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request. 36
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0972

Filed February 21, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF J.S.,

Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired,

J.S.,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Beth A. Tigges, 

Magistrate.

A person previously subject to a mental health commitment appeals the 

denial of his petition to reinstate firearm privileges. APPEAL DISMISSED.

Grant C. Gangestad of Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm, P.L.C., West Des 

Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and J. Bradley Horn, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2

TABOR, Judge.

More than a decade ago, J.S. was subject to a mental health commitment.

As a result, he cannot legally possess a firearm. See Iowa Code § 724.31(1) 

(2016). In 2016, he filed a petition for relief from the firearm disabilities. See id. 

§ 724.31(2). The matter was heard by a Polk County magistrate, who denied relief. 

J.S. filed a notice of appeal from the magistrate’s order.

The State moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting the magistrate did not

have jurisdiction to consider the petition. J.S. did not file a resistance. The 

supreme court ordered the motion to dismiss to be submitted with the appeal. The 

parties filed their briefs, and the supreme court transferred the case to us. In its 

appellee’s brief, the State renewed its motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. 

In his reply brief, J.S. “does not disagree that the instant matter may be outside the 

jurisdiction conferred to magistrates.” 

Before reaching the merits of a case, we must decide if our court has subject 

matter jurisdiction. See In re B.T.G., 784 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). 

After reviewing the procedural history of this case, the applicable statutes, and the 

parties’ positions, we conclude we do not.

The magistrate lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the petition for 

reinstatement of firearms rights. The jurisdiction of magistrates is spelled out in 

Iowa Code section 602.6405. See State v. Moret, 486 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Iowa 

1992). That code section does not contemplate magistrates deciding petitions 

seeking restoration of firearm rights. See Iowa Code § 602.6405. Because the 

magistrate lacked jurisdiction, the magistrate’s order is void. See Wilson v. Iowa 

Dist. Ct., 297 N.W.2d 223, 226 (Iowa 1980) (holding district court decision was of 
3

no effect where court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeal). A void order cannot 

be considered on appeal. See In re L.H., 890 N.W.2d 333, 338–39 (Iowa Ct. App. 

2016). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1



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


I, Mark R. Rosenzweig, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BTU International,
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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we 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 officers 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 function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls 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: November 12, 2003








                                 /s/ Mark R. Rosenzweig
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Mark R. Rosenzweig
                                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30150]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (ComE-IN); Notice 
of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic 
Inclusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (``FACA''), 5 U.S.C. App., and after consultation with the General 
Services Administration, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation has determined that renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee 
on Economic Inclusion (``the Committee'') is in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FDIC by law. 
The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the FDIC and has 
provided valuable feedback to the agency on important initiatives 
focused on expanding access to banking services for underserved 
populations. The Committee will continue to provide advice and 
recommendations on initiatives to expand access to banking services for 
underserved populations. The Committee will continue to review various 
issues that may include, but not be limited to, basic retail financial 
services such as low-cost, sustainable transaction accounts, savings 
accounts, small dollar lending, prepaid cards, money orders, 
remittances, and other services to promote asset accumulation and 
financial stability. The structure and responsibilities of the 
Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in 
November 2006. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance 
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee 
Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-30150 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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  CreditRiskMonitor.com,  Inc. ("CRM")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Jerome S. Flum,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  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.


                                            By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum
                                                    Jerome S. Flum
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

May 16, 2005


                                       35
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1864 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1864

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
         Secretary of the Senate Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
         Secretary of the Senate Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, SECRETARY OF 
              THE SENATE EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Secretary of the 
Senate Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $10,036,000.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                  EXHIBIT 23.1 - CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements,
Form S-8 No. 333-101121 - Pactiv Corporation 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan,
Form S-8 No. 333-33484 - Pactiv Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and
Form S-8 No. 333-90333 - Tenneco Packaging Inc. Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees
and Tenneco Packaging Inc. Thrift Plan, of our report dated January 21, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Pactiv
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adam Bennefield, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[971 NYS2d 717]—

Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered May 27, 2009. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of attempted kidnapping in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Bennefield*(109 AD3d 1152 [2013]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Bindley and Whalen, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GREG HUOT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2628

[April 15, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 432012CF000488A.

Shirley L. Bates of The Law Office of Shirley L. Bates, Tallahassee, for 

appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

FORST, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Terms of Recognition for ANAB (Revised December 31, 2023)

Recognized 

Accreditor: 

ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB)

Address: 1899 L St., NW, Suite 1100-A Washington, DC 20036

Dates of Initial 

Recognition: 

May 31, 2000 (FCC)

May 31, 2004 (ISED)

November 8, 2005 (IMDA)

November 3, 2008 (OFCA)

December 11, 2009 (MIC)

Extended to: March 31, 2024

Criteria for 

Recognition:

ISO/IEC 17011 and NVCASE Program Handbook NISTIR 

6440:2004 ED 

Scope of 

Recognition:

a. United States: Federal Communication Commission's 

Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) Program as 

described in FCC Report & Order 98-338 (GEN Docket 98-

68), Public Notice DA 99 1640, and the FCC TCB Roles and 

Responsibilities document

b. Canada: Innovation, Science, and Economic Development 

Canada (ISED) requirements in REC-CB under APEC TEL 

MRA Phase II

c. Singapore: Info-communications Media Development 

Authority (IMDA) as described in the IMDA MRA REC 

SCHEME document under APEC TEL MRA Phase II

d. Hong Kong: Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) 

requirements as described in OFCA MRA 001 and OFCA 

MRA 002 documents under APEC TEL MRA Phase II

e. Japan: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 

(MIC) requirements of the Radio Law and Telecommunications 

Business Law (and related ordinances) as described in the 

US-Japan MRA

To Apply for Accreditation to ANAB, please contact:

Ross Quan

Manager of Accreditation

Product Certification Accreditation

1899 L St., NW, Suite 1100-A Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-880-5808 

Email: rquan@anab.org
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WARREN EDWARD FORNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CR-93-83, CA-96-30-T)

Submitted: July 31, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Grant Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under former 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The omission of the language “and

carry” in the description of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), conviction on the judgment order does not amount to error requiring 28

U.S.C. § 2255 relief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We deny Appellant’s

motion for summary reversal and 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