alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





AEROSONIC CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

# Table of Contents

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aerosonic Corporation (the Company) for the period ending January 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Baldini, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



March 31, 2004







/s/ David A. Baldini



David A. Baldini

Chief Executive Officer

TPA:316553:1
Labor force participation of mothers with 
children under 1 year old, 2007-08


	                     Percent	

			   2007	   2008
Total mothers		   55.1	   56.4
Married, spouse present	   54.6	   56.2
Unmarried mothers	   56.5	   56.8

Note: "Unmarried mothers" include never-married, 
divorced, separated, and widowed mothers.
EXHIBIT 31.2 

 

I, John A Gappa, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Universal Hospital Services, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 financialstatements, 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 certifyingofficer(s) 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, orcaused 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 conclusionsabout 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 theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Inter-American Foundation

# TIME AND DATE:

 September 6, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

# PLACE:

 Via tele-conference hosted at Inter-American Foundation, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 1200, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

# STATUS:

 Meeting of the Board of Directors, Open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 Next steps for updating advisory council membership.

 The role of the Board in funding decisions.

# FOR DIAL-IN INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Karen Vargas, Executive Assistant, (202) 524-8869.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel, (202) 683-7118.

Paul Zimmerman,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2017-18263 Filed 8-24-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
Volunteer rates, September 2001-02 to September 
2006-07 (percent)


Year	    Volunteer rate

2001-02		27.4
2002-03		28.8
2003-04		28.8
2004-05		28.8
2005-06		26.7
2006-07		26.2
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended
May 31, 2003 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlin Miller, Jr., the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


                                     /s/ Marlin Miller, Jr.
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Marlin Miller, Jr.
                                     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal Executive Officer)

                                     July 14, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


                                       41
Order entered April 17, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00857
- CV
ROY AND MILYCE PIPKI N, Appellant s

V. JACK R. GAUBERT AND B ARCLAY PROPERTIES, L TD., Appell ee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 17
- 05538
- C



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ April 12, 2019 motion to extend time to file their brief

. Appellants seek a ninety

- day extension due to heal th reasons.
We note this appeal was filed July 27, 2018 and the brief was first due December 8,
201 8

. The deadline has been reset twice, once to allow appellants an opportunity to hire counsel and the second after appellants amended their notice of appea l. The current exten sion motion was filed after appellants failed to file their brief by March 27, 2019 and they were informed the appeal could be dismissed unless they filed, within ten days, an extension motion and their brief. Because this appeal has been pending for over eight months and the brief was first due five months ago, we GRANT the extension motion to the extent we ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 3, 2019. We caution appellants that further extension requests will bedisfavored. In accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 10.1, all future

filings shall contain a certificate of service and, any motions, shall contain a certificate of conference. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.5, 10.1.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 07 6 . TAMEKA MARKS v . SAMUEL W . W I LLI AMS et a l

.

Th i s d i s p os s es s ory cas e o ri g i n at ed i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Fo l l o wi n g an ad v ers e

ru l i n g, Tam ek a M ark s fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal

. 1 Ho w ev er, “ [t ] h e o n l y av en u e o f ap p eal

av ai l ab l e fro m [a] m a g i s t rat e co u rt ju d g m en t i s pro v i d ed by OCGA § 1 5 -1 0 -4 1 (b )
( 1 )

, wh i ch al l o ws fo r a d e n o v o ap p eal t o t h e s t at e o r s u peri or co u rt .” Ha n d l e r v

. Hu l sey , 1 9 9 G a

. A p p

. 7 5 1 (4 0 6 SE2 d 2 2 5 ) (1 9 9 1 ). T h i s Co u rt m ay o n l y ad d res s

m ag i s t rat e co u rt m at t ers t h at al read y h av e b een rev i ewed by t h e s t a t e or s u p eri o r

co u rt

. See i d .; W

es t wi n d Co r

p

. v. W a s h i n gt o n Fed

er a l S a vi n g s & Lo a n As s n

. , 1 9 5 Ga.
Ap p . 4 1 1 (1 ) (3 9 3 SE2 d 4 7 9) (1 9 9 0 ).

Th e Geo rg i a C o n s ti t u t i o n req u i res t h at “ [a] n y co u rt s h al l t ran sfer t o t h e

ap p ro p ri at e co urt i n t h e s t at e an y ci v i l cas e i n wh i ch i t d et erm i n es th at ju ri s di ct i o n o r

v en ue l i es el s ewh ere.” See Ga. Co n s t

. of 1 98 3

, A rt

. V I, Sec. I, P a r. VIII; Bo s ma v.

Gu n t er , 2 5 8 G a. 6 64 (3 7 3 S E 2 d 3 6 8 ) (1 9 8 8). Acco rd in g l y , t h i s ap peal i s h ereb y

TRANSFERRED t o t h e Fu lt o n Co u n t y St at e Co u rt

.

1 M ark s d i rect ed h er ap peal t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

, wh i ch t ran s ferred th e m at t er
t o t hi s Co u rt

. October 01, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/01/2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

THOMAS EDWARD REITZ, IV, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 398 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2 3- 0409 LT Case No. 16
- 2009
- 015160 -AXXX

_____________________________ D ESHAWN G REEN , Appellant,
v. S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ 3.8 0 0 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Kevin A. Blazs, Judge. Crystal M. Frusciante, of Crystal McBee Law Firm, P.A. , Sunrise, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney General and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Talla hassee, for Appellee. October 24, 2 023 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . J AY , B OATWRIGHT , and P RATT , J J., concur.2 _____________________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
#### Joao Carlos PEREIRA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71359.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Jan. 8, 2008.

James Phillips Vaughns, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Jonathan F. Potter, Esq., Paul F. Stone, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joao Carlos Pereira seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Carlos Pereira’s motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of his attempts at rehabilitation. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir .2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)© ...

bars jurisdiction where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.”)

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of reopening forecloses Carlos Pereira’s argument that the BIA denied him due process by failing to explain adequately its reasons for denying the motion. *See Fernandez,*439 F.3d at 603-04.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Cashiers

Receive and disburse money in establishments other than financial 

institutions. May use electronic scanners, cash registers, or related 

equipment. May process credit or debit card transactions and 

validate checks.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make 

decisions, interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, more than basic people skills were required for 10.6 percent 

of cashiers, and basic people skills were required for 89.4 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of cashiers with cognitive and mental requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 4.4 95.6

Interaction with general public >99.5 <0.5

Working around crowds 0.7 99.3

Telework <0.5 >99.5

Work review: Supervising others 2.6 97.4

Work review: Presence of supervisor 90.9 9.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and 

experience 

requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, 

credentials necessary, onthe-job training, and prior 

work experience necessary 

for average performance in 

jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for 5.7 percent of 

cashiers. Prior work 

experience was required for 

4.3 percent and on-the-job 

training was required for 

greater than 99.5 percent.

No minimum education was 

required for 84.6 percent of cashiers.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete 

hazards or difficulties that are in the 

vicinity of where jobs’ critical tasks 

are performed.

In 2023, 92.3 percent of cashiers 

were not exposed to extreme cold, 

and 99.2 percent were not exposed 

to extreme heat. Wetness was not 

present for 51.1 percent, greater 

than 99.5 percent were not exposed 

to heavy vibrations, and 76.9 percent 

were not exposed to the outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities 

required to perform tasks in jobs. 

The presence and, in some cases, 

duration of these activities are 

published.

In 2023, reaching at or below the 

shoulder was required for 97.7 

percent of cashiers and was not 

required for 2.3 percent.

Performing work in low postures was 

required for 73.8 percent of cashiers 

and was not required for 26.2 

percent.

The choice to sit or stand when 

performing critical tasks was 

available to 4.4 percent of cashiers. On average, workers spent 5.8 percent of the workday sitting and 94.2 percent of 

the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of cashiers with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 4.4 95.6

Driving 0.7 99.3

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 1.8 98.2

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
#### Britton *v.*The Venture.

*(District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.*

October Term, 1884.)

Admirality Jurisdiction—Mortgage or Vessel eor Purchase Money.

A mortgage of a vessel to secure purchase money is not a maritime contract, and a court of admirality will neither decree a foreclosure thereof nor enforce the mortgagee’s right of possession under it.

In Admiralty. *Sur*motion to dismiss libel.

*Bird & Porter,*for libelant.

*Barton & Son,*for respondents.

Acheson, J,

It appears by the admissions now of record, and from the copy furnished the court, that the instrument of January 17, 1883, recited in the libel, is nothing more than a mortgage of five-sixteenths of the steam tow-boat Venture, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes given for purchase money due the mortgagees upon a sale by them to the mortgagors of shares in the boat. Now it is settled that such mortgage is not a maritime contract, and that a court of admiralty will neither decree a foreclosure thereof nor enforce the right of the mortgagee to possession under it, *Bogart*v. *The John Jay,*17 How. 399; *Schuchardt*v. *Ship Angelique,*19 How. 239; *The Lottawanna,*21 Wall. 588. These cases are decisive against the jurisdiction of the court over the controversy here, even did the authorities cited by the libelant’s counsel hold a contrary doctrine. But they do not. Bor example, in the case of *The Martha Washington,*1 Cliff. 463, there had been a decree of foreclosure, and the absolute title had become vested in the libelant before suit brought. * • -■

The motion to dismiss the libel for want of jurisdiction must be allowed. Let such decree be drawn.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Richard J. Stockton, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc.; and

 

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

 
| Date: April 30,   2019 |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
|                        | By:    | /s/ Richard J. Stockton |
|                        |   | Richard J. Stockton |
|                        |   | President and Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Arrow International, Inc. for the quarter ended February
29, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           5,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                       947
<INVENTORY>                                     77,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,225
<PP&E>                                         214,855
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 382,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,855
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,661
<OTHER-SE>                                     232,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   382,771
<SALES>                                        157,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,318
<CGS>                                           73,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    39
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,049
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,448
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.94


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                                             March 31,
                                                                     -------------------------
                                                                        1999           1998
                                                                     ----------    -----------
<S>                                                                  <C>           <C>         
DETERMINATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
   FIXED CHARGES:

Earnings (loss) before income taxes and extraordinary charge         $  609,700    $(3,362,333)

Fixed charges
     Amortization of deferred financing costs                           296,299         85,106
     Interest expense                                                 4,182,779      1,516,207
                                                                     ----------    -----------
Earnings (loss) before fixed charges                                  5,088,778     (1,761,020)

Fixed charges
     Amortization of deferred financing costs                           296,299         85,106
     Interest expense                                                 4,182,779      1,516,207
                                                                     ----------    -----------
Total fixed charges                                                   4,479,078      1,601,313

Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges                                  1.14X        (1.10)X
                                                                     ==========    ===========
</TABLE>


                                                                              19