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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                   SECTION 302
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Jon L. Gorney, certify that:

   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Processing,
Inc.;

   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;

   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 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 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:

      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: August 6, 2004                    By: /s/ JON L. GORNEY
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jon L. Gorney
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Maria Castagna v. Humana of Virginia

October 6, 1982

Case No. (Law) 5545

By JUDGE BERNARD G. BARROW

The defendant’s plea to the statute of limitations was heard on July 16, 1982, after which time it was taken under advisement and plaintiff was given an opportunity to file additional authorities. This has been done, and the defendant relies on authorities presented at the hearing in this matter.

This is a proceeding seeking damages for personal injuries arising out of medical malpractice allegedly occurring on December 26, 1975. The motion for judgment was filed on December 22, 1977, four days before the two-year Statute of Limitations would have run. On January 15, 1982, the proceeding was struck from the court’s docket and discontinued in accordance with the provisions of Virginia Code § 8.01-335(A), generally referred to as the two-year rule.

On July 16, 1982, after notice the plaintiff moved to have the proceeding reinstated in accordance with that same provision. Defendant’s counsel advised that the defendant had no objection to the case being reinstated, and on that date the matter was reinstated. Immediately thereafter counsel for the defendant asserted that the matter was barred by the applicable statute of limitations in accordance with the plea filed on behalf of the defendant on May 21, 1982. Although this pleading asserts an objection also to the reinstatement of the matter, at the hearing counsel *72
      *(or*the defendant advised that there was no objection to the matter being reinstated.

Defendant’s counsel refers to and relies on the language in *Payne*v. *Buena Vista Extract Co.,*124 Va. 296, 311 (1919), where the Court said:

> Now the term "discontinuance" has a well-settled meaning in the law and has had from a very ancient time. "A discontinuance is in effect a nonsuit."

The parties agree that the new nonsuit provisions contained in § 8.01-335 of the Virginia Code do not apply, and the defendant asserts that since the discontinuance under the two-year rule is equivalent to a nonsuit, the matter is now barred by the Statute of Limitations.

However, the definition of "discontinuance" must now also be viewed in light of the definition of the word "reinstated" since the matter has now been reinstated without objection.

In *United States*v. *Green,*107 F.2d 19, 22 (9th Cir. 1939), the Court of Appeals said that "To reinstate a case means simply to place again in the position enjoyed prior to dismissal." In that case the Statute of Limitations was held not to be a bar where a case had been "reinstated" in accordance with certain federal legislation.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that this case, having been reinstated, is placed again in the position it enjoyed prior to dismissal and the Statute of Limitations is not a bar.
EXHIBIT 32



---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Union Financial Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dwight V. NeeseDwight V. Neese President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Richard H. FlakeRichard H. Flake Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 17, 2006
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT (99)(a)       CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF JAMES
                      CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of James
Cable Partners, L.P. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 (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.


Dated: March 28, 2003                      /s/ William R. James
                                           --------------------
                                           William R. James
                                           President of Jamesco, Inc., a general
                                           partner of James Communications
                                           Partners, the general
                                           partner of James
                                           Cable Partners, L.P.
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

The foregoing certification accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.



                                      -49-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001016177
<NAME> DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          31,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  512,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    136,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               851,799
<PP&E>                                         509,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,507,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          663,119
<BONDS>                                        397,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                     439,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,507,355
<SALES>                                        682,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               682,769
<CGS>                                          573,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  573,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,921
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,460
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,460
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

# Certificate of
Principal Financial Officer pursuant to section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report), I, George E. Mazzotta, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CNET Networks, 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 Section
               15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: August 8, 2005/s/George E. Mazzotta
George E. MazzottaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and will be retained
by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adolf Blocker, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 736]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered March 15, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

By decision and order on motion dated September 25, 1996, this Court directed that a reconstruction hearing be held with respect to the selection of the jury. The reconstruction hearing record reveals that during the first round of jury selection, the People contended that the defendant was exercising his peremptory challenges in a racially-discriminatory manner *(see, People v Payne,*88 NY2d, 172; *Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79). The defendant was required to provide a race-neutral explanation for his challenge to Juror Number Two, and the Trial Judge seated that juror over the defendant’s objection. The defendant’s trial attorney, relying on her own notes and independent recollection, stated at the hearing that she challenged the juror because he was the victim of a car theft, and the defendant’s previous convictions included a car theft. The trial prosecutor candidly admitted that he had no independent recollection of the jury selection nor did he recall why the Trial Judge ultimately rejected the defense counsel’s explanation as pretextual. He suggested, however, that the defense counsel’s explanation was pretextual because “a lot of jurors nowadays have had, and then, even, had car thefts in their history”. In the decision and order issued after the reconstruction hearing, the Trial Judge simply reiterated his trial ruling that the *568reasons offered by the defense counsel were pretextual, and not race-neutral.

The defendant contends that the Trial Judge erred in seating Juror Number Two over his objection because the People failed to show that the peremptory challenge was racially discriminatory. We agree. The defendant established that he offered a facially race-neutral explanation for this peremptory challenge. The trial prosecutor was unable to recall with certainty the specific factual arguments he made to support his claim that the explanation was pretextual, and the Trial Judge evidently was unable to recall because he set forth no reason for his ruling *(see, People v Payne, supra,*88 NY2d, at 183-184). In view of the sparseness of the reconstructed record of the voir dire, a determination that the Trial Judge found the defendant’s explanation to be pretextual because other jurors were not challenged on the same ground *(cf., People v Stiff,*206 AD2d 235, *cert denied*516 US 832), as the People contend, would be based on speculation. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the defendant is granted a new trial.

In view of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Asia Premium Television Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stanley R. Goss, Chief Financial Officer 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 to the best of 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 financial condition and result of operations of the Company.









Date:

August 19, 2003



/s/ Stanley R. Goss

Stanley R. Goss

Chief Financial Officer
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Janie Stembridge v. Victor Ray Stembridge

June 7, 1995

Case No. N-503-1

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

At last week’s hearing, Victor Stembridge brought on a motion to reduce his post divorce spousal support obligation. The parties have been divorced since June 7,1985.

> Code § 20-109 grants courts continuing jurisdiction to modify awards where changed circumstances are demonstrated. Thus, “[the] statutory scheme recognizes that comparative needs and capacities change as circumstances change, that changes are not fairly predictable, and that spousal support awards must be determined in light of contemporary circumstances and ... redetermined [if necessary] in light of new circumstances.” *Jacobs*v. *Jacobs,*219 Va. 993, 995, 254 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1979).

*Blank*v. *Blank,*10 Va. App. 1, 4 (1990). By order dated April 15,1992, the court ordered that Victor pay Janie Stembridge (Janie) $75.00 per month and maintain health insurance. In addition Victor is required to pay $200.00 of the health insurance policy deductible of $500.00.

At the hearing it was uncontested that at the time of the April, 1992 order the insurance premium Victor was required to pay monthly to maintain health insurance benefits was $276.00. Now, that cost has increased to $401.00 a month while Victor’s salary has increased only 40% during this time. It was also uncontested that Janie has not made any claim under the policy during this time. On the basis of the increase Victor asks for a reduction. The court has decided to grant a reduction.

*434The marked increase in this expense compared with only a slight increase in salary makes for a change in circumstances under Va. Code § 20-109. There is also the longstanding problem of Janie’s undefined medical conditions and her claimed inability to have gainful employment because of her health concerns, which, as before, remain undiagnosed and untreated.

The reduction will be to $300.00 for health insurance which Victor can pay direct to any insurer or to Janie. Accordingly, Victor shall continue to pay $75.00 a month plus $300.00 for health insurance.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21091]



[[Page 45888]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

[RR04073000, XXXR4081X3, RX.05940913.7000000]


Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Following consultation with the General Services 
Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) is renewing the charter for the Glen Canyon Dam 
Adaptive Management Work Group. The purpose of the Adaptive Management 
Work Group is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary 
concerning the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the exercise of other 
authorities pursuant to applicable Federal law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Whetton, 801-524-3880, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d514a5558494952537d484e5f4f135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf7ecf3feefeff4f5dbeee8f9e9b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in accordance with 
Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended). The certification of renewal is published below.

Certification

    I hereby certify that Charter renewal of the Glen Canyon Dam 
Adaptive Management Work Group is in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the 
Interior.

Ryan K. Zinke,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2017-21091 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4332-90-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---

Exhibit 99.12

CONSENT OF EXPERT
February 25, 2010
British Columbia Securities Commission
Alberta Securities Commission
Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission
Manitoba Securities Commission
Ontario Securities Commission
New Brunswick Securities Commission
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
Registrar of Securities, Prince Edward Island
Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador
Registrar of Securities, Northwest Territories
Registrar of Securities, Nunavut
Registrar of Securities, Yukon
United States Securities and Exchange Commission Re:
     Annual Information Form dated February 25, 2010 (the Annual Information Form) of Minefinders Corporation Inc. (the Company).
  We refer to our report entitled "NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Minable Reserve for the Dolores Gold-Silver Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico" dated March 25, 2008 (the "Report") as referenced in the Annual Information Form and documents incorporated by reference therein. We hereby consent to the use of our firm name and our report in the Annual Information Form and in documents incorporated by reference therein. We confirm that we have read the Annual Information Form and we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations that are derived from our Report referred to above or that are within our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with such Report. We consent to the filing of this consent with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Companys Form 40-F dated February 25, 2010, and any amendment thereto, including post-effective amendments and as part of a post-effective amendment to the Companys Form F-10, to incorporate the Companys Form 40-F dated February 25, 2010. [Signature page follows]
5757 Central Ave Suite D Boulder, CO 80301 USA +1 (303) 443-2209 FAX +1 (303) 443-3156Mining Office: 274 Union Boulevard Suite 450 Lakewood, CO 80228 USA +1 (720) 407-4062 FAX +1 (720) 407-4067
http://www.gustavson.com         gustavson@gustavson.com


- 2 - Yours truly,GUSTAVSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Per:
     /s/ Willliam J. CrowlWilliam J. Crowl, R.G.Vice President, MiningFebruary 25, 2010
   5757 Central Ave Suite D Boulder, CO 80301 USA +1 (303) 443-2209 FAX +1 (303) 443-3156Mining Office: 274 Union Boulevard Suite 450 Lakewood, CO 80228 USA +1 (720) 407-4062 FAX +1 (720) 407-4067
http://www.gustavson.com       gustavson@gustavson.com
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(a)1







ALLETE Executive Annual Incentive Plan
Form of Award
Effective 2018
[Eligible Executive Employees, except CEO and CFO]


Target Award Opportunity


	
		
	Base Salary
	$

	 
	 

	Times
	 

	 
	 

	Award Opportunity (percent of base salary)
	%

	 
	 

	Equals
	 

	 
	 

	Target Award 
	$






Performance Levels and Award Amounts




	
			
	Goal Performance Level
	Payout as Percent of 
Target Award
	Award Amount 

	Superior
	200% 
	$

	Target
	100% 
	$

	Threshold
	45% 
	$

	Below Threshold
	0% 
	$






Goals




	
									
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Goal

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Weighting

	 
	Financial Goals
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Net Income 
	50%

	 
	 
	Cash from Operating Activities
	 
	25%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Strategic & Operational Positioning Goals
	 
	 
	 
	  25% 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	100%






Compensation Subject to Compensation Recovery Policy


Annual Incentive Plan Compensation is subject to recoupment as defined in the Compensation Recovery policy.