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

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Frank E. Williams, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Williams
Industries, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report on Form 10-K 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. The registrant'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)) 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. 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

c. 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 (the registrant's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies 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.


October 19, 2007
/s/ Frank E. Williams, III
--------------------------
Frank E. Williams, III
Chairman of the Board,
President,
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2017

No. 04-17-00384-CV

IN RE ADAN VOLPE PROPERTIES, LTD, Maricela Volpe, General Partner,

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CVF-000127-D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Relators’ motion for rehearing en banc and request for emergency stay is denied.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus O’NEAL MCGILL, a/k/a James Owens, a/k/a Hard Times, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-166-12-3-MU) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: January 31, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. O’Neal McGill, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: O’Neal McGill appeals from the district court’s order denyinghis motion to correct his name on his criminal judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McGill’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Defendants in criminal cases have ten days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments orfinal orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). This time period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” United States v. Raynor , 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). The only exception to the appeal period is when the district court grants an extension “[u]pon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The district court’s order was entered on August 11, 2000. McGill filed his notice of appeal on August 24, 2000. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). McGill’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We 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
Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Unilever N.V., a corporation organized under the laws of
the Netherlands (the Company) for the period ending December31, 2017as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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:

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.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|Dated: 28 February 2018                  
|                                         
|/s/ Paulus Gerardus Josephus Maria Polman
|Paulus Gerardus Josephus Maria Polman    
|Chief Executive Officer                  
|                                         
|Dated: 28 February 2018                  
|                                         
|/s/ Graeme David Pitkethly               
|Graeme David Pitkethly                   
|Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
Values represent the interim year-to-date figures.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      48,061,719
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         700,519
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                116,585,188
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      75,828,633
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        74,629,518
<LOANS>                                    623,245,407
<ALLOWANCE>                                  9,391,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             903,564,704
<DEPOSITS>                                 781,853,429
<SHORT-TERM>                                34,680,795
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,265,072
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    56,721,679
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,043,729
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             903,564,704
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             42,124,563
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            8,485,185
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               101,152
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            50,710,900
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          20,987,201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,577,215
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       28,133,685
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,315,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               6,288
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             20,740,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,545,027
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  12,545,027
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,900,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.84
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,427,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,756,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             8,402,149
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  792,398
<RECOVERIES>                                   564,975
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            9,391,545
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Gabriel G. BOIMAH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-2458.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 7, 2013.

Filed: March 19, 2013.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity case asserting employment-discrimination and other state-law claims, Liberian national Gabriel Boimah appeals following the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to Speedway SuperAmerica LLC (SSA), Boimah’s former employer. We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper on Boi-mah’s claims that SSA violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) by discharging him based on his national origin and in reprisal for engaging in protected conduct. Even assuming Boimah presented a prima facie case on both claims, SSA provided evidence that he was discharged for insubordination, and Boimah did not present sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the proffered reason for his termination was a pretext for either national-origin discrimination or reprisal. *See Goins v. W. Group,*635 N.W.2d 717, 722-24 & n. 3 (Minn.2001) (for MHRA discrimination claim, once employer demonstrates legitimate business reason for employment action, plaintiff must show reason was pretext for discrimination); *Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Dep’t,*783 N.W.2d 182, 189-90 (Minn.Ct.App.2010) (same for MHRA reprisal claim). Next, we conclude Boimah’s defamation claim failed because he did not allege that a purportedly false performance appraisal was published to a third party. *See Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp.,*766 N.W.2d 910, 919-20 (Minn.2009) (elements of defamation action). As to his remaining claims, we agree summary judgment was proper for the reasons given by the district court. Finally, we do not review Boimah’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s discovery order because Boimah did not object to it below. *See McDonald v. City of St. Paul,*679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir.2012) (magistrate judge’s order denying motion to compel was unreviewable when party failed to file objection in district court).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      714,655
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    260,478
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         101,417
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,171
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  15,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,094,765
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            214,336<F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           544,076
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   29,590
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 306,793
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,094,795
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      300,460
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     258,212
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     258,212
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         42,248
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,374
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  46,622
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        38,814
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,808
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          71,182
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Old Dominion is organized and operated as a cooperative. Patronage capital is
the retained net margins of Old Dominion which have been allocated to its
members based on their respective power purchases in accordance with Old
Dominion bylaws.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR., a/k/a Tubbs , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 2:95

- cr - 00193

- REP

- 1 ; 2:07

- cv - 00529

- REP )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7209 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr. , appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction

. * Our review of the record confirms

t hat the district court properly construed Winfield’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 225 5 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling
authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § § 2244(b)(3)(A) , 2255(h) ; McRae , 793 F.3d
at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Winfield’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Winfield’s
claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized , successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7209 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      By 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 Annual Report of Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Gibbs,
      Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.





/s/
      James R. Gibbs


James
      R.
      Gibbs


Chairman
      of the Board, President and


Chief
      Executive Officer





February
      28, 2007
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3009

___________ Umar M. Abdullah, also known as * Otha Townsend, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, * Commissioner of Corrections; Eric * Appeal from the United States Skon, Assistant Commissioner of * District Court for the District Corrections; David Crist, Warden * of Minnesota. of Stillwater Correctional Facility; * Regina Stepney, Head Casemanager * [UNPUBLISHED] for Stillwater Facility; Wayne King, * Medical Technical; HAEF, * Lieutenant Officer for Stillwater * Facility; John Doe, (9) (unknown) * Correctional Officers, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 3, 2002 Filed: May 6, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.-2- Umar M. Abdullah appeals the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) of Abdullah's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.28


 


FIRST
CHESTER COUNTY CORPORATION


 


AMENDMENT TO


RESTRICTED STOCK


AWARD AGREEMENT


FOR


[ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANT NAME]


 






 


DATE OF GRANT: 
FEBRUARY 7, 2008


 


We are pleased to
advise you that the terms of Paragraph 4 of the Restricted Stock Award Agreement
awarded to you as of the Date of Grant set forth above, has been amended and
restated to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“4.                                Retirement,
Death, Disability or Change in Ownership or Effective Control.  The Vesting Date shall be accelerated in
the event:  (A) you die; (B) you
incur a Disability; (C) you retire (as provided in the EIP); or (D) a
Change of Ownership or Effective Control occurs; provided,
however, that you satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of this
Agreement, and provided further that (i) in
the case of acceleration for the events listed in (A) through (C), the
number of Vested Shares shall be equal to (I) the number of full months of
service completed from and including January 2008 divided by 36 months
multiplied by (II) the number of shares determined in 2011 based upon the
provisions of Section 2 of this Agreement,, and (ii) in the case of
acceleration for the events listed in (D), the number of Vested Shares shall be
the maximum number of shares issued pursuant to this Agreement.  The terms “Disability” and “Change in
Ownership or Effective Control” are defined in the Plan.”


 


Please attach this
Amendment to the Restricted Stock Award previously delivered to you.


 


	
   

  	
  FIRST CHESTER COUNTY
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Date:
<PAGE>

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

         Re: Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

                  (i) the 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 Report fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


Dated as of this 4th day of August 2005.


                                        /s/ John P. Amboian
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John P. Amboian
                                        President