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

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Oromin Explorations Ltd. (the Company) for the year ended February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

1. The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: September 16, 2008
|------------------------
|                        
|(signed):Chet Idziszek



|Chet IdziszekPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------------------------------------

---
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20012 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO RIOJAS, JR.; DAVID CANTU; PEDRO MORENO; RAMIRO RIOJAS; LUIS MORENO; LAZARO MORENO; IRELA YVETTE RIOJAS GONZALEZ; MELBA RIOJAS MORENO; ROSANNA RIOJAS GUERRERO; JOSE LUIS CANTU; EDUARDO MORENO; RENE GONZALEZ; CESAR MORENO, SR.; RENATO RIOJAS; a/k/a Renato Riojas-Sandoval, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-142

- - - - - - - - - - July 11, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Moreno and Melba Riojas Moreno appeal from the district court’s order revoking the magistrate judge’s order of release pending trial. The district court’s decision rests on its conclusion that both Pedro Moreno and Melba Riojas MorenoNo. 97-20012 - 2 - present a danger to the community and no conditions will reasonably assure safety, and that they present a risk of flight and no conditions will reasonably assure their appearance as required. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)-(g). The district court’s conclusions as to Pedro Moreno are supported by the record. See United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court's conclusion that no conditions will reasonably assure Melba Riojas Moreno's appearance is supported by the record. The district court’s detention order as to Pedro Moreno and Melba Riojas Moreno is AFFIRMED.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-04-008 March 11, 2004

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC, PSEG TO DISCUSS WORK ENVIRONMENT

 AT SALEM, HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Public Service Enterprise Group

(PSEG) managers on March 18 to discuss the environment for raising and addressing safety

issues at the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power plants. PSEG Nuclear operates the plants,

which are located in Hancocks Bridge, N.J.

 The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Select Bridgeport, which is located

off Exit 10 of Interstate 295 in Swedesboro, N.J. It will be open to the public for observation and

there will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff after the

business portion of the meeting is concluded but before the session is adjourned.

 On January 28, the NRC sent a letter to PSEG regarding the plants’ safety conscious

work environment, which refers to an openness to safety concerns and effectiveness in dealing

with them. In order to better assess the state of the plants’ work environment, the letter asked

PSEG to conduct its own in-depth assessment, with a plan of action requested within 30 days.

 PSEG provided a response on February 27, noting it had formed an Independent

Assessment Team, whose fieldwork is expected to be completed by mid-April.

 ###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freytman Odilion CARRILLO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50764.

D.C. No. CR-99-02581-J.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

*631Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Freytman Odilion Carrillo-Torres appeals the 63-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we vacate and remand.

Carrillo-Torres contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence for his prior felony conviction for driving under the influence, in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 23152. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Trinidad-Aquino,*259 F.3d 1140, 1142 (9th Cir.2001).

After the district court rendered its decision, we determined a § 23152 conviction cannot be used to enhance a sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). *See United States v. Portillo-Mendoza,*273 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir.2001); *cf. United States v. Corona-Sanchez,*234 F.3d 449 (9th Cir.2000), *reh’g en banc granted,*265 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.2001). Because the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in *Portillo-Mendoza,*we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 432.101 Statutory authority.

This part applies to reduction in grade and removal of employees covered by the provisions of this part based solely on performance at the unacceptable level. 5 U.S.C. 4305 authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of title 5, chapter 43, United States Code, including 5 U.S.C. 4303, which covers agency actions to reduce in grade or remove employees for unacceptable performance. (The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7501 *et seq.,* may also be used to reduce in grade or remove employees. See part 752 of this chapter.)

[58 FR 65533, Dec. 15, 1993]
#### § 550.1408 Prohibition against payment for unused compensatory time off.

As provided by 5 U.S.C. 5550b(b), an individual may not receive payment under any circumstances for any unused compensatory time off he or she earned under this subpart. This prohibition against payment applies to surviving beneficiaries in the event of the individual's death.
#### § 5001.103 Impartiality determinations for members of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

A member is an “agency designee” for the purposes of making an impartiality disqualification determination under 5 CFR 2635.502(d) with respect to the member's own participation in a Commission proceeding. This determination must be made in consultation with the Designated Agency Ethics Official.
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 
 I, Judith A.
Vitale, **** Chief Financial
Officer of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. certify that:
  1.
    I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form**10-Q of
      Firstwave Technologies, 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(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;
  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(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.
  Date: May 13,
2005
 
 
 /s/ Judith A.
Vitale
 Judith A.
Vitale
 Chief Financial
Officer
§ 550.1105 Review and approval of agency regulations. ( a ) *Initial OPM review of agency regulations.* ( 1 ) Creditor agencies must submit regulations to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for review in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5514 and this subpart prior to publication of final regulations or prior to implementation, if intragency collection procedures are not published. Submissions must be for agency-wide and/or Government-wide collections.
( 2 ) Creditor agency regulations must contain all provisions specified in § 550.1104. If agency regulations are incomplete, OPM will return them with information as to what must be done to obtain approval.
( b ) *Proposed changes in salary offset regulations.* If a creditor agency proposes significant changes in the regulations covering provisions specified in § 550.1104, the proposed revisions must be submitted to OPM for review and approval prior to implementation.
( c ) *Supplemental regulations.* When a creditor agency has issued approved regulations covering the provisions specified in § 550.1104, the agency may issue any supplemental regulations or instructions, consistent with its approved regulations, which are necessary for solely internal operations, without prior OPM approval.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 29, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 10-1347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID S. SZYMUSKIEWICZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 07-CR-171

Lynn Adelman, Judge.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on September 9, 2010, is amended as follows:

Page 8, delete the entire paragraph beginning on the bottom of this page 

starting with, “In saying that . . .”

Page 9, delete the entire paragraph beginning on the bottom of this page 

starting with, “The Stored Communication Act . . .”
§ 2470.2 Definitions. ( a ) The terms *agency, labor organization,* and *conditions of employment* as used in this subchapter shall have the meaning set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a). When used in connection with 3 U.S.C. 431, the term *agency* as used in the Panel's regulations in this subchapter means an employing office as defined in 3 U.S.C. 401(a)(4).
( b ) The term *Executive Director* means the Executive Director of the Panel.
( c ) The terms *designated representative* or *designee* of the Panel means a Panel member, a staff member, or other individual designated by the Panel to act on its behalf.
( d ) The term *hearing* means a factfinding hearing, arbitration hearing, or any other hearing procedure deemed necessary to accomplish the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 7119.
( e ) The term *impasse* means that point in the negotiation of conditions of employment at which the parties are unable to reach agreement, notwithstanding their efforts to do so by direct negotiations and by the use of mediation or other voluntary arrangements for settlement.
( f ) The term *Panel* means the Federal Service Impasses Panel described in 5 U.S.C. 7119(c) or a quorum thereof.
( g ) The term *party* means the agency or the labor organization participating in the negotiation of conditions of employment.
( h ) The term *quorum* means a majority of the members of the Panel.
( i ) The term *voluntary arrangements* means any method adopted by the parties for the purpose of assisting them in their resolution of a negotiation dispute which is not inconsistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7119.
[45 FR 3520, Jan. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 19693, May 2, 1983; 63 FR 46159, Aug. 31, 1998]
NRC NEWS                   U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                               Office of Public Affairs              Telephone: 301/415-8200

                              Washington, D.C. 20555-0001       E-mail: opa@nrc.gov     Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 07-060                       May 14, 2007

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING MAY 22 ON WORK AUTHORIZATIONSFOR NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Tuesday, May 22, in Rockville,Md., to discuss recent changes in the agency’s rules regarding limited work authorizations (LWA) fornew nuclear power plants.

The NRC’s regulations now require a company to obtain a LWA before starting constructionactivities including pile-driving and foundation work for structures, systems or components with highimportance to safe operation and security at a nuclear power plant. The meeting will discuss the revisedregulations in more detail and provide guidance as to how they will be implemented.

The public is invited to participate in this meeting and discuss issues with NRC staff atdesignated points in the agenda. The meeting will run from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the Commissioners’Hearing Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville. The new LWA regulationswere announced in an April press release.

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link.  E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
§ 575.305 Applicability to employees. ( a ) An agency may pay a retention incentive to an individual employee under the conditions prescribed in this subpart when the agency determines that— ( 1 ) The unusually high or unique qualifications (*i.e.*, competencies) of the employee or a special need of the agency for the employee's services makes it essential to retain the employee; and
( 2 ) The employee would be likely to leave the Federal service in the absence of a retention incentive.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an agency may pay a retention incentive to a group or category of employees under the conditions prescribed in this subpart when the agency determines that— ( 1 ) The unusually high or unique qualifications (*i.e.*, competencies) of the group or category of employees or a special need of the agency for the employees' services makes it essential to retain the employees in that group or category; and
( 2 ) There is a high risk that a significant number of the employees in the group would be likely to leave the Federal service in the absence of a retention incentive.
( c ) An agency may not include in a group retention incentive authorization an employee covered by § 575.303(a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(5) or those in similar categories of positions approved by OPM to receive retention incentives under § 575.303(a)(7).
( d ) A retention incentive may be paid only when the employee's rating of record (or an official performance appraisal or evaluation under a system not covered by 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 or 5 CFR part 430) is at least “Fully Successful” or equivalent.
[70 FR 25747, May 13, 2005, as amended at 78 FR 49364, Aug. 14, 2013]
§ 451.303 Restrictions. ( a ) *Governmentwide limitations* —SES. During any fiscal year— ( 1 ) The number of career SES appointees awarded the rank of Meritorious Executive may not exceed 5 percent of the career SES; and
( 2 ) The number of career SES appointees awarded the rank of Distinguished Executive may not exceed 1 percent of the career SES.
( b ) *Governmentwide limitations* —Senior career employees. During any fiscal year— ( 1 ) The number of senior career employees awarded the rank of Meritorious Senior Professional may not exceed 5 percent of the total number of career appointees to OPM-allocated Senior-Level (SL) and Scientific-Professional (ST) positions; and
( 2 ) The number of senior career employees awarded the rank of Distinguished Senior Professional may not exceed 1 percent of the total number of career appointees to OPM-allocated Senior-Level (SL) and Scientific-Professional (ST) positions.
( c ) *Frequency of awards.* Individuals awarded a Distinguished or Meritorious rank under this subpart shall not be entitled to be awarded that rank during the following 4 fiscal years.
[67 FR 52596, Aug. 13, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 44367, Aug. 8, 2007]
Hillsborough,

June, 1899.

#### Lessard *v.*Boston & Maine Railroad.

In an action against a railroad company to recover for baggage received of a passenger and lost upon a connecting road, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendants made a contract of carriage beyond their own line.

Assumpsit, to recover the value of baggage lost upon the Central Vermont Railroad. Trial by the court. The plaintiff purchased of an agent of the defendants, at Nashua, a ticket for Montreal. The ticket had a coupon for each road over which the plaintiff would travel, and contained the stipulation that, “ in selling this ticket and checking baggage hereon, this company acts only as agent, and is not responsible beyond its own line.” The plaintiff could not read, did not know what was on his ticket, and supposed it would take him safely to Montreal. He made no inquiry about it, and did not say that he could not read it. The Central Vermont is an independent line of road.

The court found a verdict for the defendants, upon the ground' that they were not liable beyond their own line when they had given express notice to that effect,, and the plaintiff excepted.

*Henry B. Atherton,*for the plaintiff.

*Oliver B. Branch*and *Charles H. Burns,*for the defendants.

Peaslee, J.

The question of whether the defendants contracted to carry the plaintiff and his baggage beyond their own line of road was one of fact, and the verdict will not be disturbed if there was evidence to warrant the conclusion reached. *Gray*v. *Jackson,*51 N. H. 9.

"Whether the printed matter on the ticket was express notice to the purchaser, who was unable to read it, is a question not necessary to be considered. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendants made a contract to carry his baggage beyond their own line of road. It was not necessary for the defendants to negative a presumption that they made such a contract, for under the law of this state no such presumption arose. *Gray*v. *Jackson, supra.*The case differs from those where the carrier attempts to limit the liability which ordinarily attaches to the contract for carriage. In such cases, the party who seeks to vary the agreement ordinarily implied as a part of the contract to carry must show that the other party had notice *649of the intent to make such special arrangement. But here it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove as a fact that the defendants did make the special contract which he sets up.

The verdict was based upon the finding that the defendants gave express notice that they did not contract as the plaintiff claimed, and seems to have resulted from the theory that the defendants must show, not only that they did not make the contract, but also that they expressly refused so to do. While this theory is erroneous, yet, as the prevailing party was held to be under a greater obligation than the law imposed, the verdict must stand. *Felch*v. *Railroad,*66 N. H. 318. The finding that they gave express notice that they would not contract in a certain way, necessarily includes one that it was not proved that they did so contract.

*jException overruled.*

All concurred.
GAO-01-1087R National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

August 21, 2001

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Subject: Federally Chartered Corporation: Review of the Financial Statement Audit

Report for the National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated, for Fiscal Years

2000 and 1999

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements of the

National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated, a federally chartered corporation, for the

fiscal years ended June 30, 2000 and 1999. The corporation promotes public safety in

skiing.

Federally chartered corporations are required under 36 U.S.C. 10101 to

! present the corporation’s assets and liabilities and reasonable detail on the

corporation’s income and expenses in annual financial statements,

! obtain an annual financial audit by an independent public accountant, and

! submit the auditors’ report and the corporation’s financial statements to the

Congress.

The objective of our review was to determine whether the audit report complied with

the financial reporting requirements of the law. In carrying out our work, we

reviewed the corporation’s financial statements and the accompanying notes,

performed certain analytical procedures related to information presented in the

financial statements, reviewed the auditors’ report, and made inquiries to corporation

officials or the auditors as we deemed necessary. We did not review the auditors’

working papers. Our review disclosed no reportable instances of noncompliance.
Page 2 GAO-01-1087R National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated

The audit report included the auditors’ opinion that the financial statements of the

corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting

principles. We are returning the audit report you sent with your letter.

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff

Managing Director

Financial Management and Assurance

w/o Enclosure
Page 3 GAO-01-1087R National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated

(194061)