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


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Gerald J. Yakatan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AVANIR Pharmaceuticals;

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 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 to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiary, is made known to us by others within that entity, particularly
      during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

   b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
      Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
   most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
   of registrant's board of directors:

   a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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.

Date: December 22, 2003

                                        /s/Gerald J. Yakatan, Ph.D.
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Gerald J. Yakatan, Ph.D.
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Gould *against*Chase.

Where tii» defendant,having executed a promissory note, after-wards promises the assignee of the note to pay it, he cannot, in an action brought on the note, by the assignee in the name of the payee, set off demands which he had against the nominal plaintiff prior to the making of the note, merely upon proving those demands, without farther explanation, as it is to be presumed from the fact of his subsequently giving a note, coupled with his promise to the assignee to pay it, that the subject of the set-off had been previously satisfied.

IN ERROR, on *certiorari to*a Justice’s Court.

This was an action upon a promissory note not negotiable, executed by the defendant in error, who was, also, defendant in the Court below, to the plaintiff in error, in whose name the suit was brought, but for the benefit of one *Hos-kins,*the assignee of the note. The note was dated the 28th of *December,*1813, for 25 dollars, payable three months after date, with interest. The note was assigned before it fell due, and the defendant, before it became payable, called at the store of *Hoskins,*and asked if the note was in his hands, and on its being shown to him, said, that he was not ready to meet it then, but that he should be down in a short time, when he would settle it. The defendant offered to set-off a note given by the plaintiff to one S. or hearer, dated the 10th of *December,*1810, for one dollar and 33 cents, and also, a memorandum in his book of accounts, dated the 27th of *May,*1811, and signed by the plaintiff, by which he admitted, that there was then due from him to the plaintiff, the sum of 63 dollars, and 48 cents. This set-off was, on proof of the plaintiff’s handwriting, admitted, and the Justice rendered judgment for the defendant for the costs.

*Per Curiam.*

The note which was allowed to be set-off, ■was given by the plaintiff three years before the note on which the suit was brought, and the settlement between the parties took place about a year and a half afterwards. The question is, whether, under the circumstances of this case, the demands exhibited by the defendant ought to have been *227considered as due to him from the nominal plaintiff. In the absence of all explanation, the giving of the note in ques-lion, is *prima facie*evidence, that these demands had been satisfied; but when to this fact is added the testimony, that the defendant promised to pay the note when it was shown to him by *Hoskins,*after the assignment, the presumption that the demands offered as a set-off, had been previously settled, is not to be resisted.

Judgment reversed.
#### Elisa Jimenez, Appellant, v Peter Acheson et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 22, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
exv10w32wo






Exhibit 10.32O




Attachment A to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

Eligible Model Description




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA 1980
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20






 









 






Attachment A-1 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-223ER Eligible Model Description and Price

GE Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA1980 55804-1F.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20






 









 






Attachment A-2 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-223ER Eligible Model Description and Price

PW Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA1980 55803-1F.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20






 









 






Attachment A-3 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-223ER Eligible Model Description and Price

RR Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA1980 55805.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20






 









 






Attachment A-4 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-323 Eligible Model Description and Price

PW Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA1980 55808-1F.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20






 









 






Attachment A-5 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-323 Eligible Model Description and Price

RR Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA1980 55809-2F.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20






 









 






Attachment A-6 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-223LR Eligible Model Description and Price

GE Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA-1980 55726-1F.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20







 












 





Attachment A-7 to Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-AKP-110R3

777-323ER Eligible Model Description and Price

GE Engines




[CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST

FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	AAL- PA-1980 55725-1F.TXT
	 	Boeing Proprietary
	 	SA-20
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20494]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
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 National Institute 
of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Mentored Career Development 
(K) and Conference (R13) Award Application Review (2018/01).
    Date: October 20, 2017.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 
920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: John P. Holden, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-
8947, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e14111610501611121a1b103e10171650191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c46434442024443404849426c424544024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; MSM Program Review (2018/01).
    Date: November 2, 2017.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 
920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Manana Sukhareva, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#186b6d7370796a7d7558767170367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee9d9b85868f9c8b83ae808786c0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.


    Dated: September 19, 2017.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20494 Filed 9-25-17; 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>
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 annual report of Process Equipment, Inc., now known as HQ
Sustainable  Maritime  Industries,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission
on August 14,  2003 (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned  officer  of the  Company
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

         1.       the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the  Company and will be  furnished  to the SEC or its staff
upon request.

 /s/ Norbert Sporns
------------------------
Norbert Sporns
Chief Executive Officer
September 10, 2004



         This  Certification of Chief Executive  Officer pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 is not "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by the
applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Lines v. Lines

August 10, 1983

Case No. (Chancery) 34118

By JUDGE THOMAS R. MONROE

There is pending before this Court the decision on the motion to quash service of process filed by Defendant on a special appearance. I have carefully considered the cases submitted as well as the capable arguments of both counsel presented to the Court on August 5, 1983.

The parties were married on November 6, 1965; two minor children were born of this marriage; on or about November 15, 1980, the parties separated. Defendant Karen Marie Lines lives in Huntingtown, Calvert County, Maryland, with the two minor children; Complainant lives in Arlington County, Virginia.

Testimony presented to the Court reveals that Complainant filed his Bill of Complaint with the Clerk of this Court on May 18, 1983. On the same date Complainant called Defendant to take the subway from Washington, D.C., to Arlington County for the purpose of dinner, a property settlement discussion and child support payment. Complainant instructed the Defendant to take the Metro Orange Line and exit at Courthouse where he would meet her and give her additional fare to exit the station. Defendant followed Complainant’s instructions, arrived at Courthouse Station where Complainant met her, gave her additional fare allowing her to exit the subway station. They walked together along Wilson Boulevard, about one fourth block from *112the subway station, when Deputy Sheriff J. D. Snoots, Arlington County, approached her and asked if she was Karen Lines. Upon responding Deputy Sheriff Snoots served her with a Subpoena in Chancery and the service of process. Defendant has testified that she came into Arlington County at the request of the Complainant for dinner, to discuss property settlement and to receive child support.

The motion to quash service of process raises the question of whether process served on Defendant was valid. I am of the opinion that service of process was invalid. Complainant made special arrangements with Deputy Sheriff J. D. Snoots to serve Defendant. Complainant induced Defendant to come within the jurisdiction of Arlington County by fraud, trickery and misrepresentation. The Complainant did not disclose his real purpose to the Defendant in enticing her to come to Arlington County and had she been so informed she would not have entered this County. The motion to quash service of process is granted.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Fourth Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that termination of the suspended investigation covering uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on February 1, 2017 (82 FR 8951) and determined on May 8, 2017 that it would conduct an expedited review (82 FR 27287, June 14, 2017).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on September 20, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4727 (September 2017), entitled                     *Uranium from Russia: Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Fourth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 20, 2017.

Lisa R. Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2017-20502 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Dr. Ghyasuddin Syed and Southeast Texas Institute of Pain 

Management, P.A. v. Phu Huu Nguyen, Pharm. D., PLLC 

d/b/a Wellness Pharmacy and Phu “Paul” Huu Nguyen

Appellate case number: 01-16-00856-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-64778

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

Appellants, Dr. Ghyasuddin Syed and Southeast Texas Institute of Pain 

Management, P.A., have filed an agreed motion, representing that the parties have agreed 

to mediate and mediation is scheduled for December 15, 2016, and requesting that the 

Court stay the appeal proceedings to conduct mediation. We grant the motion.

Accordingly, we stay the appeal. Appellants shall file no later than January 16, 

2017, a motion to reinstate and dismiss the appeal, a motion to reinstate and proceed with 

the appeal, or a report advising the Court of the status of the mediation proceedings. If 

appellants do not respond as directed by January 16, 2017, the case will be reinstated on 

the Court’s active docket and the appeal will proceed under the applicable Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually 

Date: November 8, 2016
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form N-2 of Investcorp Credit Management BDC, Inc. and Subsidiaries (formerly CMFinance Inc) (the Company) of our report dated September 21, 2020, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements appearing in the accompanying Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2020, and of our report datedSeptember 21, 2020 relating to the senior securities table of the Company appearing as an exhibit to the Form 10-K. 

We also consent to the referenceto our firm under the captions “Selected Financial Data”, “Senior Securities”, and Item 9 in the Form 10-K. 

/s/ RSM US LLP 

New York, New York 

September 21, 2020
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




Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of China Green
Agriculture, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of his/her knowledge:





(1)
 The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010 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:
      September 3, 2010/s/
      Tao LiTao
      LiPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)




/s/
      Ken
      RenKen
      RenChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer and principle accounting
                officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Green Agriculture, Inc. and will be retained by China Green Agriculture,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Dennis Sobin

April 24, 1984

Case No. C-22114

By JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF

The remaining issue for decision on this matter is the motion of the Defendant for the production of any and all statements of alleged co-conspirators during the course of the conspiracy which the Commonwealth intends to submit into evidence at trial. Defendant relies on *United States*v. *Thevis,*84 F.R.D. 47, in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held co-conspirators’ statements to be discoverable under Federal Rule 16(a)(1)(A).

I have examined the *Thevis*decision and likewise have compared Federal Rule 16(a)(1)(A) with Virginia Rule 3A: 14(b)(1). A careful reading of the two satisfies me that the Federal Rule is much broader and does not contain the implied limitations of the Virginia Rule. A liberal reading of the Federal Rule makes discoverable any relevant written or recorded statement. The Virginia Rule on the other hand provides for the discovery of written or recorded statements or confessions made by the accused or the substance of any oral statements or confessions made by the accused to any law enforcement officer.

Accordingly it seems to me that the Defendant’s motion for discovery under these circumstances must be denied.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 23

- 3 340 LT Case No. 2009

- CF

- 193

- A

_____________________________
T IMMOTHY A. Z EIGLER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County

. Peter M. Brigham , Judge

. Timmothy A. Zeigler
, Cross City , pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell Sanders , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

February 6, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

E ISNAUGLE , H ARRIS , and S OUD , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________