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

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ilia Lekach, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Parlux Fragrances, 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 (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 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.

Dated: June 28, 2004                      /s/ Ilia Lekach
                                          ---------------
                                          Ilia Lekach,
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
							CareersFAQsContact UsSite Map

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout UsMission & ValuesThe Agency helps build better relationships through joint problem-solving and constructive responses to inevitable conflict.Our HistoryAgency DepartmentsOffice of the DirectorOffice of Procurement and Operational SupportOffice of Human ResourcesOffice of BudgetOffice of Information TechnologyOffice of FinanceOffice of the General CounselOffice of Field Operations (Regional)Office of Client ServicesOffice of Field Operations (National)Office of National ProjectsOffice of Conflict Management & Prevention/InternationalCenter for Conflict Resolution EducationOffice of Field AdministrationOffice of Policy and StrategyOffice of Congressional and Public AffairsOffice of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)LocationPhone: (202) 606-8100 
Fax: (202) 606-4251ServicesResolving Labor-Management DisputesCollective Bargaining MediationGrievance MediationAlternative Bargaining ProcessesTechnology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGSBuilding Labor-Management RelationshipsEffective Contract AdministrationEffective  CommunicationsLabor-Management Partnership BuildingOrganizational DevelopmentRepairing Broken RelationshipsAlternative Dispute Resolution for GovernmentWorkplace MediationAdministrative Program DisputesFacilitationDispute Resolution Systems DesignRegulatory NegotiationsPublic Policy DialoguesEducation and OutreachSkills Development TrainingFMCS InstituteFMCS Collaboration with UniversitiesInternational ServicesConferences and WorkshopsArbitrationRequesting a PanelArbitration Policies and ProceduresInformation for FMCS Roster ArbitratorsInformation on Joining the Arbitrator RosterArbitration Contact InformationResourcesFMCS CalendarForms & Applications for FMCS ServicesMediation Agreement FormsArbitrationNotice to FMCS of Upcoming Collective Bargaining (F-7)Labor-Management Grants ProgramFOIA RequestsDocuments and DataMulti-MediaListen to the Conflict Resolutionary PodcastFMCS 101 Video SeriesSpeeches & PresentationsFAQsNLMC InfoVirtual Services
Search for:  Protected: Private: Test Icon Page

															Home/Protected: Private: Test Icon Page Protected: Private: Test Icon PagePaula Shank2023-10-25T10:13:51-04:00
			
			This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password: Copyright 2020 FMCS | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  EEO/No FEAR Act  |  PAR  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508 |  SORNs
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
EXHIBIT 10(U)

ADVO, INC.

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

Effective as of January 26, 2006, ADVO, Inc. (the Company) and S. Scott Harding
(Harding) agree to amend the Severance provision of Hardings Employment Agreement to effect changes required in connection with the adoption of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code by
adding the following paragraph as the last paragraph in such Severanceprovision:

Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Agreement, if any payments to be made pursuant to this Agreement are subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, such payments shall be made in accordance with the provisions of such Section 409A,
including without limitation that the first payment of severance shall be made on a date that is six months after the date of termination and such payment shall include all amounts of severance earned but not paid from the date of termination
through the date of such first payment.

Except as set forth above, the Employment Agreement between Harding and the Company bearing an Effective
Date of October 15, 2004, as previously amended, remains in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Amendment effective as of January 26, 2006.



ADVO, INC.By:

/s/ Donald S. SchneiderName:

Donald S. SchneiderTitle:

Executive Vice President/s/ S. Scott HardingS. Scott Harding
Exhibit 13.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1650,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Jamie Lewin, Chief Financial Officer of NUVA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (the Company), certify that to the best of my knowledge:



1.

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/Jamie Lewin

Jamie Lewin

Chief Financial Officer

January 12, 2014
<PAGE>


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

I, Adam DeBard, Chief Operating Officer, of Global Diversified Industries, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended July
31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Date: September 15, 2004                    By: /s/  Adam DeBard
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief Operating Officer (Principal
                                            Accounting and Financial Officer)
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 Quarterly Report of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                       |  |                                                             
|--------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Kevin M. McMullen
|                      |  | Name:                 |  | Kevin M. McMullen                                           
|                      |  | Title:                |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President             
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ Michael E. Hicks 
|                      |  | Name:                 |  | Michael E. Hicks                                            
|                      |  | Title:                |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3384]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on December 7, 2001, I find that Autauga, Blount, Butler, Calhoun, Cherokee, Clay, Dale, DeKalb, Etowah, Fayette, Jefferson, Lamar, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, St. Clair, Talladega and Winston Counties in the State of Alabama constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and tornadoes occurring on November 24-25, 2001. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on February 5, 2002 and for economic injury until the close of business on September 9, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Barbour, Bibb, Chilton, Cleburne, Coffee, Colbert, Conecuh, Coosa, Covington, Crenshaw, Cullman, Dallas, Elmore, Franklin, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Lowndes, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Pickens, Pike, Randolph, Shelby, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Walker and Wilcox counties in the State of Alabama; Chattooga, Dade, Floyd, Polk and Walker counties in the State of Georgia; Itawamba, Lowndes and Monroe counties in the State of Mississippi; Franklin and Lincoln counties in the State of Tennessee. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.500Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.375For Economic Injury:Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 338411. For economic injury the number is 9N7600 for Alabama; 9N7700 for Georgia; 9N7800 for Mississippi; and 9N7900 for Tennessee. Dated: December 10, 2001. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008). Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 01-30975 Filed 12-14-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NO. 12-08-00206-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BENJAMIN ROWLAND BEALL, II, § APPEAL FROM THE 

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to reckless driving, and the trial court assessed punishment on

January 24, 2007. The record includes the trial court’s certification showing that this is a plea

bargain case and Appellant has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2 (d). Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered May 21, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21350

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FREDERICK LAMAR HAWTHORNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-307-3

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Frederick Lamar Hawthorne has

requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although he was

notified of counsel’s motion, Hawhthorne has filed no response.

Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to

Hawthorne’s conviction. As part of his plea agreement, Hawthorne
No. 02-21350

-2-

validly waived his right to directly appeal his sentence. 

See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994).

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.
#### Virginia TAMBUNAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74354.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 30, 2010.

Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Virginia Tambunan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 *135U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tambunan’s motion to reopen as untimely where Tambunan filed the motion almost four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to submit material evidence of changed circumstances in Indonesia that would excuse the late filing, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); *see also Malty,*381 F.3d at 945 (requiring circumstances to have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
           HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-HSA3 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the "Servicer")  pursuant to the Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of
May 25, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"),  among Residential
Funding  Company,  LLC (formerly  Residential  Funding  Corporation),  as master
servicer,  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee,  and the Home Equity
Loan Trust 2006-HSA3, as the issuing entity, does hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
Opinion issued March 8, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00088-CV

———————————

IN RE EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, has filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its request 

for entry of a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending a 

hearing on its request for a temporary injunction.

1

 

1 The underlying case is ExxonMobil Oil Corporation v. Landmark Industries, LLC, 

Landmark Industries Energy, LLC, Landmark Petroleum, LLC, Landmark 

Industries Holdings, Ltd., and Shell Retail and Convenience Operations LLC, Cause 
2

In connection with its mandamus petition, relator also filed a “Verified 

Motion for Emergency Relief,” requesting that, pending consideration of the 

mandamus petition, the Court stay the closing of a transaction for the purchase of 

several properties between real parties in interest, Landmark Industries, LLC, 

Landmark Industries Energy, LLC, Landmark Petroleum, LLC, and Landmark 

Industries Holdings, Ltd., and real party in interest, Shell Retail and Convenience 

Operations LLC. On February 9, 2022, the Court granted relator’s emergency 

motion staying the closing of the transaction.

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay imposed by 

our February 9, 2022 order. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Countiss and Farris.

No. 2021-83044, in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable 

Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LAWRENCE NISKEY ,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1 3

- 1269 (JDB)

JEH JOHNSON , Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,

Defendant

.

ORDER

On September 29 , 2014, this Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss Lawrence

Niskey’s Title VII complaint. Less than three weeks later, Niskey [27] wrote to the Court,

reiterating many of his original arguments. The Court will construe Niskey’s letter as a motion

for reconsideration under Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

. See Civil Statement from Pl.

[ECF No. 27] at 4 (“I am requesting th e Court reconsider [its] decision to dismiss this case

. . . .”); see also SEC v. Bilzerian , 729 F. Supp. 2d 9, 12 (D.D.C. 2010) (“If a person files a

motion for reconsideration within twenty

- eight days of the judgment or order of which he

complains, court s consider it a Rule 59(e) motion; otherwise, they treat it as a Rule 60(b)

motion.”). “Motions under Rule 59(e) are disfavored and the moving party bears the burden of

establishing extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from a final judgment.” Ha lim v.

Donovan , 951 F. Supp. 2d 201, 203 (D.D.C. 2013) (internal quotat ion marks and citation

omitted)

.Much of Niskey’s motion focuses on the substance of his complaint

— irrelevant here, as

the Court predicated its ruling on the finding that Niskey had failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. S ee generally Sept. 29, 2014 Mem. Op. [ECF No. 26] ; see also Slate v. Am. Broad.

Cos.

, --- F. Supp. 2d

--- , 2013 WL 6713178, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2013) (“[L]itigants may not

use Rule 59(e) either to repeat unsuccessful arguments or to assert new but previ ously available

arguments.”) . Indeed, only one of Niskey’s renewed arguments goes to the question of

exhaustion: he argues that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirements are not

jurisdictional in nature. Quite so

— and the Court recognized that in its memorandum opinion.

See Mem. Op. at 4. But that fact simply means that the requirement is subject to equitable

tolling and estoppel. See id. And Niskey presents no reason to reconsider the Court’s decision

that equitable tolling is inappropriate in this case. See id. at 6.

Hence, u pon consideration of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration , the applicable law,

and the entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED th at [ 27 ] plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED

.

SO ORDERED

.

/s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge Dated: October 22 , 201 4