alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31(a)**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, J. TimothyBryan, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ICO Global Communications(Holdings) Limited;

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

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                designed suchdisclosure 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)               evaluated theeffectiveness 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)                disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat 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’sother certifying officer(s) 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)                all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)               anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006 | /s/ J. TIMOTHY  BRYAN     |
|----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                       | J. Timothy Bryan          |
|                       | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions 

Chapter 8: Summary Report of Compensation Reported Using the Internet

1

Access Employer Reports

To access available reports, click "Reports" on the left-side menu. Currently, the only report 

available is "BA-4 Summary." Click the report title. 

BA-4 Summary Report

First select the processing year for which you want a report. Then select the report detail. If you 

choose quarterly (all) or monthly (all) you will receive all the activity for the year summarized by 

quarter or month. The remainder of the menu choices will list the activity only for an individual 

quarter or month. The BA-4 Summary Report provides the number of individual activity records 

and the net RUIA, Tier I, and Tier II compensation processed on this system during the period 

selected. If you adjust service months only, this will count as an activity record. The monthly or 

quarterly amounts are summarized in yearly totals at the end of the report. Negative amounts 

appear with a negative sign.

Explanation of RRB Processing Date

Data for reports is accumulated by the RRB processing date. In general, this is the next processing 

day following the date the BA-4 was approved on the system. Reports approved on a Friday are 

usually processed to RRB accounts on Saturday. However, if the end of the month is Friday and 

the situation is not clear from your report, you can telephone QRSC to determine the processing 

date. In some situations, weekend processing may occur before midnight on Friday or as late as 

Sunday. 

BA-11 Summary Report

To access the BA-11 Summary Report, select the BA-11 link under Completed on the left-side 

menu. Select the reporting year and click on “Submit” then click on the “Summary Report” button.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HERMAN HOLMES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-2582

[July 22, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-13835 

CF10A.

Richard L. Rosenbaum of the Law Offices of Richard Rosenbaum, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda Melear, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996).

CIKLIN, C.J., CONNER, J. and BOORAS, TED, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134491 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134491 

 COA: 266170 

St. Joseph CC: 03-011781-FC

JEFFERY TODD BARNES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2007 

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

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

s0317 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15633]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds--Terminations: 
Acadia Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, Union Insurance 
Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 16 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570, 2008 Revision, published June 30, 2008, at 73 FR 37644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificates 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above-named companies under 
31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as acceptable sureties on Federal bonds were 
terminated effective June 30, 2009. Federal bond-approving officials 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department 
Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2008 Revision, to reflect this change.
    With respect to any bonds currently in force with these companies, 
bond approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need 
not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from 
these companies, and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be 
renewed.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: June 23, 2009.
Rose M. Miller,
 Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division.
[FR Doc. E9-15633 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
**Exhibit 31.2**

**MANAGEMENTCERTIFICATION**

I, Brian J. Clark,certify that: 

1.                   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of Stanley, Inc.;

2.                   Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                   The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure 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)               Evaluated theeffectiveness 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)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                  The registrant’sother certifying officer 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)                All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)               Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|                       |   | /s/ BRIAN J. CLARK                    |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Brian J. Clark                        |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| Date: August 9,  2007 |   | (Principal Financial Officer)         |

 

----
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 SGS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned each hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                                                  
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|August 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Henry R. Baughman                            
|                |  | Henry R. Baughman                                
|                |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  
|                | 
|August 12, 2010 |  | /s/ James M. Dahmus                              
|                |  | James M. Dahmus                                  
|                |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Emma Longstreet, Respondent, v Nelson Peltz, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 899]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 14, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff, a nanny for the defendant’s child, allegedly was injured when she was bitten by the defendant’s dog. In support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the dog neither had “vicious propensities” nor “behave[d] in a manner that. . . reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” *(Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d 592, 597 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d 444 [2004]; *Vitrella v Rodrigues,*11 AD3d 287 [2004]; *Blackstone v Hayward,*304 AD2d 941 [2003]; *Sers v Manasia,*280 AD2d 539, 540 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In light of this determination, we need not address the issues raised in connection with the defendant’s workers’ compensation defense. Miller, J.P, Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
@conference{1213736,
  author = {Harrison M. Skye and Piotr A. Domanski and Mark O. McLinden and Valeri I. Babushok and Ian Bell and Tara Fortin and Michael Hegetschweiler and Mark A. Kedzierski and Dennis Kim and Lingnan Lin and Gregory T. Linteris and Stephanie L. Outcalt and Vance (Wm.) Payne and Richard A. Perkins and Aaron Rowane},
  title = {Non-flammable Low-GWP Refrigerant Blends to Replace HFC-134a},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-11 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the 26th IIR International Congress of Refrigeration, Paris, FR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956508},
  language = {en},
}
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Richard Siskind and Beverly Roseman, and each of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Stage II Apparel Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2001 (the "Report") and any amendments thereto, and to file same, with all exhibits thereto, and all
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done to comply with the
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

|Dated: April 11, 2002 |                                    
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------
|                      | /s/RICHARD SISKINDRichard Siskind  
|                      | /s/ROBERT GREENBERGRobert Greenberg
|                      | /s/BARRY FERTELBarry Fertel        
|                      | /s/BEVERLY ROSEMANBeverly Roseman  
|                      | /s/JON SISKINDJon Siskind          

---

QuickLinks
#### Edison Rodriguez, Appellant, v Coalition for Father Duffy, LLC, Defendant, and Theatre Development Fund, Inc., Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 51]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia Rodriguez, J.), entered March 28, 2012, which granted defendant Theatre Development Fund, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

A license agreement between defendant and the owner of the subject premises, the City of New York, acting through the Department of Parks and Recreation, permitted defendant to operate the premises as a ticket stand, and gave defendant the responsibility for supervising the work of all personnel necessary for the operation of this license. It is premature to decide whether defendant was a statutory agent of the City and thus may be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Tuccillo v Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.,*101 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2012]; *Weber v Baccarat, Inc.,*70 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2010]), regardless of whether plaintiff’s employer was hired directly by the City rather than by defendant. We do not reach defendant’s unpre*408served, contention that the dismissal of the section 240 (1) claim should be affirmed on the alternative ground that plaintiff’s cleaning work was not a covered activity under the statute, “since the issue is not a purely legal issue apparent on the face of the record but requires for resolution facts not brought to plaintiffs attention on the motion” *(Botfeld v Wong,*104 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2013]; *see Soto v J. Crew Inc.,*21 NY3d 562 [2013]).

Plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims were prematurely dismissed before depositions were taken. The contractual provisions requiring defendant to supervise and control the work, though “not in themselves sufficient to justify holding [defendant] liable for the alleged inadequacy” of the ladder, “do furnish cause to believe that further discovery may lead to evidence that [defendant’s] employees *did*exercise actual supervision or control over plaintiffs worksite” *(Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 506 [1993]). Defendant’s submission of affidavits broadly disclaiming any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work were insufficient to establish defendant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on these claims *(see id.).*

We also note that conflicting affidavits raise an issue of fact as to whether a bailment was created by defendant’s loan of the allegedly defective ladder to plaintiff. Such a bailment could give rise to liability for common-law negligence if defendant provided plaintiff with dangerous equipment even if its defect was patent *(see Beazer v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*76 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2010], *affd*18 NY3d 833 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Dreams, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Mark Viner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (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.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/ Mark VinerMark Viner Chief Financial Officer June 30, 2003
Gerard /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00301-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Gerard CORTES,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-05707

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice (dissenting without opinion)

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Appellee Gerard Cortes’s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00288-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

Hood County, Texas

Trial Court No. C2018199

Before Bassell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Meier, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

DIEGO CARDONA AND TX ROGUE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Appellants

V.

RENEGADE WELL SERVICES, LLC, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellants’ “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss.” We grant 

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Each party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: December 31, 2018
@article{1211196,
  author = {Amy Mensch and Savannah Wessies and Anthony Hamins and Jiann C. Yang},
  title = {Measuring Firebrand Heat Flux with a Thin-Skin Calorimeter},
  year = {2023},
  number = {140},
  month = {2023-07-11 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Fire Safety Journal},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936224},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103859},
  language = {en},
}