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



EXHIBIT 31.B CERTIFICATION I, Greg G. Gruber, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Colorado
Interstate Gas Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(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, 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 registrant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 of directors (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: March 29, 2005 /s/ Greg G. GruberGreg G. GruberSenior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT S & H TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioner

v. CITY OF YORK, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 832 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioner are:
(1) Whether the City [of York] may include, in its tax assessment on [Petitioner], gross receipts from freight-brokerage services provided to entities engaged in public utility services that are exempt from the City’s Business Privilege Tax because those entities are regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission? (2) Whether entities whose rates were once, but are no longer, regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission still enjoy the exemption from Municipal taxation articulated in 53 P.S. § 6924.301.1(f)(2)? M.D. Appeal Dkt. 17 MAP 2015
Exhibit 32(a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Phillip D. WrightPhillip D. WrightSenior Vice President
(Principal Executive Officer) February 23, 2010/s/ Richard D. RodekohrRichard D. RodekohrVice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)February 23, 2010
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION


      The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      1.    the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
            June 30, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements
            of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
            amended; and
      2.    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form
            10-Q.

Dated: August 13, 2004                          /s/ Jeffrey A. Green
                                                ------------------------
                                                Jeffrey A. Green
                                                Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  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.
 Date: November 8, 2006
    
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNY

Gregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate: November 8, 2006
    
    /s/ CHRISTOPHER F. VIRGULAKChristopher F. VirgulakChief Financial Officer
  62
’ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xonorablr George B. Shq~rd 

Com~trollor a? X'nbllo Aaoounts 

Alatin, Tetar 

Dear Sirt -.' ,. 

this Department on the 

control Boa?4 rug 

be wed by It8 

ror. aam0 out of 

out OS the Coniisaatsd Liquor yun4. or'a0uMo, tha tlover0118 are mrely to ba loaned to the ~plOJ808, not &iVM 

to than. to give the,ooverallr, to tha maployoe Or to permit their use by the aaployae for hi8 private pur~IIe8, 

would effsot a gnnt ol publia prsport~ not authorlmd by 

law. 

The question of puroharing artlolrs a? woating 

'appkl deomd neoousary to tba aooompll8hment d the work 
of the Dqwtsmt is oao pr$marSly addreared to tbo dlrorotlaa ot the head Of tha 

thon 18~a ~$alpablo and arb r 

FtloulaFideparat. Ualess 

trrw abuse of dImoratlari the 

dool8lon of the department hoad-should aOt bo set de. 

'l&e test of the valldit~ ot mmh 

r 

rOha8W 

aso rw80Mbl~ nOoos8~ tta 9ttro 

i8 rhothor the1 

the E&ate*6 purposo8; 

if u), tha taot that q IaoldwMl pmmml benotlt mat 

l oor w to tb l 81plo~o~wUl not no&o the l xpaadltu~ oao 

fOF priVates nthor thta DnbllO, g\rrp08or. It Irr ~anfaplated that the employrem o? the Stat0 8hoold prevlda tbam8elvuwIththo ordIna~aad \uadl artlolea ofrearIng 

appazolt tbo8r aanaot be tusnl8hed by tha Depwtaonts 

wlwa l xproasly l uthorIao6 by tbo LmgIrlatun am a mrt 

or the omplo 

apparel poo PI 

..*a, wmpeawtlw. But l l=tIoles of WarIag 

larl;l aooea8ary tar t3.m aooompti*hmont of 

the work at the Stats MJ, as above lndbatad, be pumharad by the Department. 

APPROVEDJm 12, l942 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T.-E&is
#### JOHNSON v. STEMCO CORP.

Civ. A. No. 27499.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

July 23, 1951.

Craig Spangenberg, Cleveland, Ohio, Robert B. Ivory, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Frank X. Cull, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action arising out of an accident involving a claimed premature discharge of a powder activated tool manufactured by defendant.

Defendant has interposed objections to plaintiff’s interrogatories 19(a) and 19(b).

These interrogatories are as follows:

> “19(a) Prior to January 3, 1949, had defendant ever reported to any casualty insurance company any accident involving a claimed unintentional or premature firing of a Tempo-Tool?

> “19(b) If so, give the date of such notification, the name of the injured person, and the name of such casualty insurance company.”

The interrogatories are objected to on the ground of irrelevancy. The Court is inclined to believe and hold that they are irrelevant in the absence of any contrary showing by the plaintiff.

Evidence of other accidents involving this type of tool would be of doubtful admissibility at trial. Furthermore, any reports of such accidents to a casualty insurance company could not be compelled, being privileged as a confidential communication from the client, intended for the attorney, In re Klemann, 132 Ohio St. 187, 5 N.E.2d 492, 108 A.L.R. 505; Hollien v. Kaye, 194 Misc. 821, 87 N.Y.S.2d 782; Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Edition, Vol. 8, Section 2317. Especially is this the rule in Ohio, In re Klemann, supra.

It is difficult to see, therefore; that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 26(b), 28 U.S.C.A.

Objections sustained.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAISY T. MORALES and JOSE A. MORALES , Appellant s ,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 2174

[September 28, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Roger B. Colton, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2010

- CA

015595XXXXMB

- AW

.
Thomas Erskine Ice of Ice Appellate, Royal Palm Beach, for appellants.

David A. Greene and W Mason of Fox Rothschild LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,787
<SECURITIES>                                    12,624
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,559
<INVENTORY>                                     14,724
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,377
<PP&E>                                          26,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,656)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,343
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,285
<OTHER-SE>                                         808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,618
<SALES>                                        100,072<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,072
<CGS>                                           60,721<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    99
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,063
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
<FN>
<F1>Includes revenues from licensing of software and support services.
<F2>Includes costs from licensing of software and support services.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.J.W. and * From the County Court at

M.S.S., children, Law of Ector County,

Trial Court No. CC

- 2993

- PC

.

No. 11

- 12

- 00324

- CV * March 28, 2013

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the

judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial

court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of KUBOTA CORPORATION (the Company), hereby certifies, to
such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2010, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 to such annual report on Form 20-F/A (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: July 9, 2010



/s/ Yasuo MasumotoYasuo MasumotoRepresentative Director, President & CEO(Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Satoru SakamotoSatoru SakamotoDirector and Managing Executive Officer(Chief Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7609
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT GORDON AMEGASHIE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-203-A, CA-95-1766-AM) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Gordon Amegashie, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Amegashie , Nos. CR-91-203-A; CA95-1766-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
---

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Student Loan Trust 2013-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific 
Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual 
investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National 
Institute of Mental Health.
    Date: September 26-27, 2017.
    Time: September 26, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Porter Neuroscience 
Research Center, Rooms GE 620/620, Building 35A Convent Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Time: September 27, 2017, 8:40 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Porter Neuroscience 
Research Center, Rooms GE 620/630/640, Building 35A Convent Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Jennifer E. Mehren, Ph.D., Scientific Advisor, 
Division of Intramural Research Programs, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH, 35A Convent Drive, Room GE 412, Bethesda, MD 
20892-3747, 301-496-3501, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7cac2cfd5c2c9cde7cac6cecb89c9cecf89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9848c819b8c8783a984888085c7878081c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 16, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-17664 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### INTEGRITY MAGNESIA CORPORATION v. MIFFLIN, McCAMBRIDGE COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 28958.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 4, 1961.

John Edward Sheridan, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

A. D. Caesar, Alan Bernstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

GRIM, Judge.

This is an action for infringement of plaintiff's registered trade-mark, in which defendant has filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment seeking to cancel the registration of the mark, and other relief.

Plaintiff has moved to strike off the counterclaim on the ground that there is no controversy of a justiciable nature 1 and that the court should not take jurisdiction of the counterclaim since the judgment in the action will obviate the necessity for a declaratory judgment.

There clearly exists a controversy of a justiciable nature since plaintiff’s action is for infringement of plantiff’s trade-mark. The counterclaim for declaratory judgment is merely another aspect of that controversy.

Whether or not the judgment in this action will obviate the necessity for a declaratory judgment, defendant if successful would be entitled to the relief prayed for in the counterclaim,2 and no grounds exist for striking it off.

Order

And now, October 4, 1961, plaintiff’s motion to strike off defendant’s counterclaim is denied.

1

. An essential prerequisite to a declaratory judgment, Ashwander v. T. V. A., 1936, 297 U.S. 288, 325, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688.

2

. Indeed, if defendant does not assert its claim in this action it may lose it. See F.R.Civ.P. 13, 28 U.S.O., which requires the assertion of such claim in this manner.
#### In the Matter of: Alexis Mager LAKUSTA, Debtor, Alexis Mager Lakusta, Appellant, v. Mark H. Evans; et al., Appellees.

No. 07-17014.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 20, 2010.

Alexis Mager Lakusta, pro se.

Julie Marie Glosson, Esquire, U.S. Trustee, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Trustee, San Francisco, CA, James Roberts, Roberts & Eliott, LLP, San Jose, CA, for Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Saundra Brown Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-00227SBA.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alexis Mager Lakusta appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his Chapter 7 case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s determinations. *Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand),*375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not improperly dismiss Lakusta’s claims on any of the grounds asserted.

Evans’s request for sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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