alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1**

**302 CERTIFICATION**

I,Valter Moro, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A.(“Endesa Chile”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this deport is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reportingto be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 30, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our reports dated February 22, 2000, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
A.S.V., Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of A.S.V., Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-94248, effective June 30,
1995, File No. 33-94250, effective July 3, 1995, File No. 333-43075 effective
December 23, 1997, and File No. 333-64291 effective September 25, 1998).




                                              /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 22, 2000
1 APPEAL NO. 06

- 15 -00022- CR SONYA KAY HARGETT § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS § V. § SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS § STATE OF TEXAS § TEXARKANA, TEXAS
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELL EE ’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW, Jonathan Hyatt, and files his Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief, pursuant to Rules 9 and 10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in support thereof, would show the Court the following:
I. The Deadline for filing Appellee’s Brief is July 6, 2015.
II. The length of the extension sought is 30 days.
III. Appellee relies on the following facts to reasonably explain said request for an
extension:
A. Collateral duties within the District Attorney ’ s Office require that counsel prepare for a jury trial with jury selection to commence on the due date of the Appellee Brief. Said case is State v. Victor Dunn , 2014- 0838, Harrison County Court at Law. ACCEPTED 06-15-00022-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/1/2015 4:17:21 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK2

B. Additional staff at the District Attorney ’ s office is participating in a Capital Murder case set to begin on the due date of Appellee ’ s brief. Incidentally, the Attorney for Appellant is participating in that case as
well.
IV. This is the first request for an extension to file Appellee’s Brief.

Wherefore, premises considered, undersigned counsel prays for this Court to extend the time for filing Appellee brief until August 5 , 2015, which i s thirty days
from the current deadline. Respectfully Submitted,
/ s/ Jonathan Hyatt Jonathan Hyatt State Bar No. 24072161
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Harrison County District Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 776 Marshall, Texas 75671 Telephone No. ( 903 ) 935

- 8408 Facsimile No. ( 903 ) 938

- 9312 jonh@co.harrison.tx.us3 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties , which are
listed below , about the merits of this mot ion with the following results:
Jason Cassel , Attorney for Appellant, does not oppose this M otion

.
/s/ Jonathan Hyatt Jonathan Hyatt

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By affixing my signature below, I, Jonathan Hyatt , hereby certify that a true copy of Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief has been provided to
Jason Cassel , Attorney for Appellant, on July 1 , 2015, by facsimile as provided by Rule 9.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

/s/ Jonathan Hyatt Jonathan Hyatt
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Automotive Cybersecurity Industry Consortium (“ACIC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Irvine, CA; American Honda Co., Inc., Torrance, CA; and Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Saline, MI, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ACIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 11, 2017, ACIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section                           ( print page 45612)                        6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 27, 2017 (82 FR 11942).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-20880 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Transition Report of Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on First Amended Form 10-K/A for the six months ended October 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the
      date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Leo Wang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








Dated:
                February 21, 2007
            /s/
                Zuoliang WangBy:     
                Zuoliang WangIts:     
                Interim Chief Financial Officer








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

[666 NYS2d 441]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered June 5, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record indicates that he understood the proceedings against him and that he *395was able to assist in his defense. Moreover, two psychiatrists found him competent to stand trial. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by determining that he was competent to stand trial *(see, People v Rowley,*222 AD2d 718; *People v Picozzi,*106 AD2d 413). Moreover, the court properly permitted the defendant to continue *pro se,*since a defendant who is competent to stand trial is necessarily competent to waive his right to counsel *(see, People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10; *People v Schoolfield,*196 AD2d 111).

The court was within its discretion to deny the defendant’s request for public funds to obtain a hypnotism expert *(see, People v Hughes,*59 NY2d 523; *People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430; *People v Carpenter,*240 AD2d 863).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference to the Company’s previouslyfiled Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated July 15, 2004,except for Note 1 and the fifth paragraph of Note 6 which are as of August 2,2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Boston RestaurantAssociates, Inc. appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended April 25, 2004.

 

 
|   | /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP |   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|

 

 

Boston,Massachusetts

August6, 2004

 

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2714 

To ensure pay parity for Federal employees serving at Joint Base McGuire/ 

Dix/Lakehurst. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Mr. ADLER of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. LOBIONDO, and Mr. HOLT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To ensure pay parity for Federal employees serving at Joint 

Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PAY PARITY FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SERV4 ING AT JOINT BASE MCGUIRE/DIX/ 

5 LAKEHURST. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of any determina7 tion of pay for an employee serving at Joint Base 

8 McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst, the pay schedules and rates to be 

9 used shall be the same as if such employee were serving 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2714 IH

1 in the pay locality, wage area, or other area or locality 

2 (whichever would apply to determine pay for the employee 

3 involved) that includes Ocean County, New Jersey. 

4 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 

5 (1) the term ‘‘employee’’ means an employee 

6 (as defined by section 2105 of title 5, United States 

7 Code)— 

8 (A) whose pay is determined under sub9 chapter III or IV of chapter 53 of such title; or 

10 (B) who is paid from nonappropriated 

11 funds of any instrumentality of the United 

12 States; 

13 (2) the term ‘‘pay locality’’ refers to a pay lo14 cality under section 5302 of such title; and 

15 (3) the term ‘‘wage area’’ refers to a wage area 

16 under section 5343 of such title. 

17 (c) REGULATIONS.—The Office of Personnel Man18 agement may prescribe any regulations necessary to carry 

19 out this Act. 

20 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

21 This Act shall apply with respect to pay for service 

22 performed in any pay period beginning on or after the date 

23 of the enactment of this Act or October 1, 2009, whichever 

24 is later. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ m 00-41264

_______________

JAMES PALMER NEILL, III, et al., Plaintiffs, JAMES PALMER NEILL, III; JODY AYKE; MARC ANDREW BIRENBAUM;

WILLIAM BUTLER; CHERYL BUTLER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; DAVID J. BICKERSTAFF; DAVID J. BICKERSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

m 5:99-CV-106

_________________________ November 13, 2001* District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 Before SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and CUMMINGS, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM: **

Pl aintiffs bring an action they describe as fraud in the inducement of various settlement agreements regarding litigation in
state courts. They appeal the district court’s dismissal, which

was based on considerations of comity and the Anti-Injunction Act. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that the dist rict court did not abuse its discretion in dismiss ing. Accordingly, we affirm, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right
t o file bills of review in the respective state courts. S ee Dubroff v. Dubroff , 883 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan

Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3243

___________

James R. Mickelson, Suing as James *

Roy Mickelson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Warden Carol Holinka, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2008

 Filed: May 5, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James R. Mickelson appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition and related motion challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ denial of his requests

for immediate halfway-house placement. We dismiss the appeal as moot, because

Mickelson was transferred to a halfway house on April 15, 2008. See Calderon v.

Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (when event occurs during pendency
-2-

of appeal that renders it impossible for court--if it should decide case in appellant’s

favor--to grant effective relief, court will dismiss appeal as moot). We also decline

to address Mickelson’s new claims on appeal, see Poolman v. City of Grafton, 487

F.3d 1098, 1101 (8th Cir. 2007), and we deny the pending motions.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of Edgar Romney et al., Appellants, et al., Petitioners, v Jay Mazur et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents.

[860 NYS2d 568]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review three related determinations of the respondents, all dated November 9, 2004, removing the petitioners Edgar Romney, William Lee, May Chen, Susan Cowell, Christine Kerber, David Melman, Richard Rumelt, Robert Jordan, and Warren Pepicelli from their respective positions at the nonparty 21st Century ILGWU Heritage Fund, those petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated October 25, 2005, as granted those branches of the respondents-respondents’ respective motions which were to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted by them and dismissed the petition insofar as asserted by them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Pursuant to the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of the 21st Century ILGWU Heritage Fund (hereinafter the Fund), directors, officers, and members of the Fund can be removed at any time with or without cause by a majority of the members and without a meeting with the written consent of the necessary number of members. Here, the appellants were properly removed from their respective positions as directors, officers, and/or members of the Fund pursuant to those provisions *(see*N-PCL 601 [e]; § 706 [a], [b]; § 714 [a]). In addition, we agree with the Supreme Court that the appellants lacked standing to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding on behalf of the Fund against the respondents, as the appellants were removed from their respective positions in November 2004, and thus did not represent any interest in the Fund at the time the proceeding was commenced in December 2004 *(see*N-PCL 623 [a], [b]; § 706 [d]; § 714 [c]; § 720 [b]; *Bernbach v Bonnie Briar Country Club,*144 AD2d 610 [1988]).

*611The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio AMARO-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-41133

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Amaro-Mendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Amaro-Mendez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Polymer Group, Inc.'s 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          37,587  
<SECURITIES>                                    10,892
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,848
<INVENTORY>                                     55,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,427      
<PP&E>                                         471,740     
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,213   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 708,115     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,273   
<BONDS>                                        362,745 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,598     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   708,115        
<SALES>                                        521,368         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               521,368         
<CGS>                                          389,013         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  389,013         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,641      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,552      
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,730     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,822     
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (13,932)    
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       890
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        
<FN> 
<F1> Earnings per share is presented before extraordinary item.
</FN> 
                                  


</TABLE>