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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Michael J. Gordon, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., certify that:





1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013, of BlastGard International, 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 are 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





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










(c) 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





(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




August 14, 2013

/s/ Michael J. GordonMichael J. Gordon, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

Release No. 9591 / May 22, 2014

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-15812

In the Matter of

the Registration Statement of 

Creative Vision Alliance Corporation, 

210 White Wing Dr. #B

Columbia, South Carolina 29229

Respondent.

ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND ISSUING 

STOP ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 8(d) 

OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

I.

On March 25, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an 

Order Fixing Time and Place of Public Hearing and Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Section 

8(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) in the administrative proceedings entitled In 

the Matter of the Registration Statement of Creative Vision Alliance Corporation (“Respondent”). 

II.

Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has 

determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings 

brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without 

admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over it and the 

subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this 

Order Making Findings and Issuing Stop Order Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Securities Act of 

1933 (“Order”), as set forth below.
2

III.

On the basis of this Order and Offer submitted by the Respondent, the Commission finds 

that:

A. On March 12, 2014, Respondent, a South Carolina corporation headquartered in 

Columbia, South Carolina, filed a Form S-1 registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) 

with the Commission. Respondent’s Registration Statement was labeled as a “prospectus” and 

stated that Respondent planned to issue 7,000,000 shares of common stock at an offering price of 

$.25 per share.

B. The Registration Statement was materially deficient for the following reasons:

1. The Registration Statement did not include audited financial statements, as 

required by Form S-1, Part 1—Information Required in Prospectus, Item 11(e), and Regulation SX of the Securities Act. 

2. The Registration Statement failed to provide management’s discussion and 

analysis of Creative Vision’s historical and interim financial information as required by Form S-1, 

Part 1---Information Required in Prospectus, Item 11(h), and Regulation S-K, Item 303. 

3. The Registration Statement failed to provide signatures as required by Form 

S-1, Part II. 

IV.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public 

interest to impose the sanction specified in the Offer submitted by the Respondent. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Securities Act, the 

effectiveness of the Registration Statement filed by Respondent and all amendments thereto, be, 

and it hereby is, suspended. 

By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson

Assistant Secretary
§ 316.11 Attachment to the Constitution; favorable disposition towards the good order and happiness. ( a ) *General.* An applicant for naturalization must establish that during the statutorily prescribed period, he or she has been and continues to be attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and favorably disposed toward the good order and happiness of the United States. Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution.
( b ) *Advocacy of peaceful change.* At a minimum, the applicant shall satisfy the general standard of paragraph (a) of this section by demonstrating an acceptance of the democratic, representational process established by the Constitution, a willingness to obey the laws which may result from that process, and an understanding of the means for change which are prescribed by the Constitution. The right to work for political change shall be consistent with the standards in paragraph (a) of this section only if the changes advocated would not abrogate the current Government and establish an entirely different form of government.
( c ) *Membership in the Communist Party or any other totalitarian organization.* An applicant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian organization shall be ineligible for naturalization, unless the applicant's membership meets the exceptions in sections 313 and 335 of the Act and § 313.4 of this chapter.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00797-CV

Darrell J. Harper, Appellant

v.

Texas Commission on Jail Standards and Anthony Mikesh, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-14-001263, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Darrell J. Harper, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of appeal

from the district court’s order dismissing his suit against appellees Texas Commission on Jail

Standards and Anthony Mikesh. On May 11, 2016, this Court notified Harper that his appellant’s

brief was overdue and that if we did not receive a satisfactory response reasonably explaining

Harper’s failure to file a brief on or before May 23, 2016, his appeal may be dismissed for want of

prosecution. On May 20, 2016, we received what Harper styled a “satisfactory response” to this

Court’s notice. However, the response contained no explanation of why Harper had failed to file a

brief. Moreover, as of this date, no brief has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution.1

 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 1
__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 14, 2016

2
<PAGE>

                    Exhibit 23.1--Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the use of our report dated August 15, 1996, incorporated by 
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Energy West Incorporated for 
the year ended June 30, 1996 and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 and 
related Prospectus pertaining to the Dividend Reinvestment Plan, with respect 
to the consolidated financial statements, as amended, and the related 
financial statement schedule, as amended, included in this Form 10-K/A1.


                                                 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Denver, Colorado
July 3, 1997


                                         E-4
# Official Journal C 340I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 340I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6313 October 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 340I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6313 October 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 340 I/01 | Communication from the Commission — 4th Amendment to the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and amendment to the Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 340 I/01

Communication from the Commission — 4th Amendment to the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and amendment to the Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance

th

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 340 I/02 | Notice for the attention of JAMAL HUSSEIN HASSAN ZEINIYE, whose name was added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1473 | 11 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 340 I/02

Notice for the attention of JAMAL HUSSEIN HASSAN ZEINIYE, whose name was added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1473

11

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### The African Methodist Episcopal Church *v.*James McGruder.

*Practice—arrest of judgment.*An objection that a suit brought before a police magistrate was against a church instead of against the trustees of the church, can not be made available on a motion in arrest of judgment in the circuit court.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.

Mr. E. H. Leach, for the appellant.

Mr. F. F. Cooke, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This suit was originally brought by McGrúder, the appellee, against the African Methodist Episcopal Church, before a police magistrate, to recover $1.75 for a load of coal, and $108 for a board bill of a former minister of the church. Judgment was rendered for $1.75 in favor of McGruder, from which he appealed'to the circuit court, where he recovered a judgment for $109.75, from which the defendant has taken an appeal to this court.

The first objection taken against the judgment is, that the suit should not have been brought against the church, but against the trustees of the church.

The first time this objection was raised in either of the courts below, was in the circuit court, on motion in arrest of judgment.

Obviously the objection could not be availed of on such motion, the ground of it not appearing on the face of the record.

Ordinarily, a misnomer, if that was the proper objection here, must be pleaded in abatement, and the plea filed at the *517earliest practicable moment. If no formal plea in writing was here necessary, the suit being brought before a police magistrate where written pleadings are not required, the objection should certainly have been interposed in some form below at an earlier stage of the suit, than in arrest of judgment. *Ada Street Methodist Church*v. Garnsey, 66 Ill. 132.

It is next objected, that the verdict is against the evidence.

The evidence was conflicting; there was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and from an examination of the whole testimony, we do not And that there is such a preponderance against the verdict as to require that it should be disturbed.

It is insisted that the court below erred in giving, at the instance of the appellee, this instruction to the jury:

> “Thej urv are instructed that the several trustees who have testified in this suit are parties to this suit, and this fact is proper for the jury to consider in determining the weight to be given to their evidence.”

Two of the witnesses for the defendant testified that they were trustees; and the summons in the suit was served upon one of them. The trustees should have been named as parties to the suit. They doubtless .had the same bias, if any, which they would have had, if they had been actually named in the summons as parties to the suit.

The instruction was formally wrong; but we do not consider it liable to such substantial objection as should cause a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rex Barry, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 715]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered April 4, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him *after*a jury trial of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We reject that contention *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “[T]he inference of wrongful intent logically flow[s] from the proven facts,” and there is a “valid line of reasoning [that] could lead a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, to conclude that the defendant committed the charged crime,” i.e., larceny by false promise *(People v Norman,*85 NY2d 609, 620 [1995]; *see People v Luongo,*47 NY2d 418, 428 [1979]; *People v Ruscito,*206 AD2d 841, 841-842 [1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 872 [1994]; *see generally*Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [d]). Defendant’s further contention that County Court’s *Sandoval*ruling constituted an abuse of discretion is not preserved for our review *(see People v Trammell,*28 AD3d 1219 [2006]; *People v Laws,*27 AD3d 1116, 1117 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 758 [2006]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Scudder, Gorski and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 298 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 298

Concurring with the decision to withdraw the United States from the INF 
                    Treaty, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2019

Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 
  Johnson, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
  Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. 
 Cornyn) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Concurring with the decision to withdraw the United States from the INF 
                    Treaty, and for other purposes.

Whereas, since 2014, the United States Government has found the Russian 
        Federation to be in violation of the limitations in the Treaty between 
        the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
        on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range 
        Missiles, together with the Memorandum of Understanding and Two 
        Protocols, signed at Washington December 8, 1987, and entered into force 
        June 1, 1988 (commonly referred to as the ``INF Treaty'');
Whereas, per Article XV of the INF Treaty, ``Each Party shall, in exercising its 
        national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it 
        decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this 
        Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of 
        its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to 
        withdrawal from this Treaty.'';
Whereas, on February 2, 2019, the United States notified the Russian Federation 
        of its intent to withdraw from the INF Treaty;
Whereas the period of six month notice, required by Article XV of the INF 
        Treaty, will close on August 2, 2019; and
Whereas, during the six month notice period, the Russian Federation made no 
        attempt to return to compliance with the terms of the INF Treaty: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) in accordance with all powers delegated and implied to 
        Congress, concurs with the decision to withdraw the United 
        States from the INF Treaty; and
            (2) declares that--
                    (A) the United States is freed and exonerated from 
                the stipulations of the INF Treaty; and
                    (B) the treaty shall not be regarded as legally 
                obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United 
                States.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 1244
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1244 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10357, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1244.15 Travel abroad. ( a ) After the grant of Temporary Protected Status, the alien must remain continuously physically present in the United States under the provisions of section 244(c)(3)(B) of the Act. The grant of Temporary Protected Status shall not constitute permission to travel abroad. Permission to travel may be granted by the director pursuant to the Service's advance parole provisions. There is no appeal from a denial of advance parole.
( b ) Failure to obtain advance parole prior to the alien's departure from the United States may result in the withdrawal of Temporary Protected Status and/or the institution or recalendering of deportation or exclusion proceedings against the alien.
[56 FR 619, Jan. 7, 1991, as amended at 56 FR 23498, May 22, 1991. Redesignated at 62 FR 10367, 10382, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 63597, Nov. 16, 1998; 64 FR 4782, Feb. 1, 1999]
#### § 247.13 Disposition of Form I-508.

If Form I-508 is executed and filed, the duplicate copy thereof (noted to show the election made on Form I-508F, if applicable) shall be filed in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Administrative Division, and may be made available for inspection by any interested officer or agency of the United States.

[35 FR 13829, Sept. 1, 1970]
### §460l–12. Recreation and fish and wildlife benefits of Federal multiple-purpose water resources projects; Congressional declaration of policy

It is the policy of the Congress and the intent of this part (a) in investigating and planning any Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydroelectric, or multiple-purpose water resource project, full consideration shall be given to the opportunities, if any, which the project affords for outdoor recreation and for fish and wildlife enhancement and that, wherever any such project can reasonably serve either or both of these purposes consistently with the provisions of this part, it shall be constructed, operated, and maintained accordingly; (b) planning with respect to the development of the recreation potential of any such project shall be based on the coordination of the recreational use of the project area with the use of existing and planned Federal, State, or local public recreation developments; and (c) project construction agencies shall encourage non-Federal public bodies to administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement purposes and operate, maintain, and replace facilities provided for those purposes unless such areas or facilities are included or proposed for inclusion within a national recreation area, or are appropriate for administration by a Federal agency as a part of the national forest system, as a part of the public lands classified for retention in Federal ownership, or in connection with an authorized Federal program for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife.

(Pub. L. 89–72, §1, July 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 213.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This part, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 89–72, which enacted sections 460l–12 to 460l–21 of this title and amended former section 460l–5(a) and section 662(d) of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 89–72, §12, July 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 218, provided: "This Act [enacting this section and sections 460l–13 to 460l–21 of this title and amending sections 460l–5(a) and 662(d) of this title], may be cited as the 'Federal Water Project Recreation Act'."