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



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horne 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 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 third fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 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 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.
 By:
    /s/ Darryl K. HorneDarryl K. HornePresident and Chief Executive OfficerHorne International, Inc.  28
----

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        OF**

**CHIEF        EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT        TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| (1) | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter                  ended June                  30, 2006 as filed on the date hereof 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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  August 14, 2006   |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     |   |
|                                     |   |
| /s/                  Chang H. Ahn        |   |
| Chang                  H. Ahn            |   |
| Chief                  Executive Officer |   |

----
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1743

_____________________________ C OURTNEY L AMAR D AVIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Angela M. Cox , Judge

. May 3, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

___ __________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 2a

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Symbols

# Historical Note
### §11386e. Appeal procedure

#### (a) In general

With respect to funding under this part, if certification of consistency with the consolidated plan pursuant to section 11361 of this title is withheld from an applicant who has submitted an application for that certification, such applicant may appeal such decision to the Secretary.

#### (b) Procedure

The Secretary shall establish a procedure to process the appeals described in subsection (a).

#### (c) Determination

Not later than 45 days after the date of receipt of an appeal described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine if certification was unreasonably withheld. If such certification was unreasonably withheld, the Secretary shall review such application and determine if such applicant shall receive funding under this part.

(Pub. L. 100–77, title IV, §431, as added Pub. L. 111–22, div. B, title III, §1305(3), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1696.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 431 of Pub. L. 100–77 was classified to section 11391 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–22, div. B, title V, §1501, May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1701.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the earlier of 18 months after May 20, 2009, or 3 months after publication of certain final regulations by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, see section 1503 of Pub. L. 111–22, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 11302 of this title.
#### Adolph H. Rosenthal, Respondent, v. Eisemann Industrial Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents upon the ground that there is no necessity for declaratory judgment in the present situation. The illegality of the agreement will be available as a defense in any litigation that may be predicated thereon.
DEFERRED STOCK UNITS GRANTED ON APRIL 30, 2007



 Exhibit 10.1 
 On April 30, 2007, Deferred Stock Units (DSUs) were granted to each non-employee member of the Board of Directors of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) pursuant to the Company’s 2004 Equity Incentive Plan. Each
director received 8,000 DSUs and each DSU represents the right to receive one share of the Company’s common stock. The DSUs vest over three years and the vested portion of the award is distributable after the earlier of the Director’s
retirement from the Board or five years from the date of grant.
No. 15-087 December 17, 2015

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Proposes $28,000 Civil Penalty for California Company for 

Import and Distribution Violations

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $28,000 fine against CampCo, Inc., Smith 

& Wesson Watch Division, of Los Angeles, Calif., for various violations of requirements related to 

importing and distributing watches containing radioactive material.

The NRC found the company imported watches containing the radioactive isotope tritium and 

distributed them to individuals and another company in violation of the NRC’s import and distribution 

regulations. Tritium watches are exempt from regulation once they are initially distributed, so retailers 

and consumers do not need a license to own them; however, the initial distribution must be made under 

an NRC license to ensure that the devices meet safety requirements.

The watches contain a small amount of tritium encapsulated in glass vials. The radioactive 

material ionizes a luminescent coating on the inside of the glass vial to produce light, so that the 

markers on the watch face and hands can be seen in low light.

CampCo Inc. holds an NRC exempt distribution license and is authorized to distribute several 

models of watches containing tritium. However, despite knowing its regulatory requirements, the 

company imported and distributed a model for which it was not authorized. The company also violated 

NRC reporting requirements. 

The company was informed of the civil penalty on Dec. 14. It has the option to seek mediation 

under the NRC’s alternative dispute resolution program.
#### Thomas Gibson, plaintiff in error, v. Rice Arnold, defendant in error.

1. Practice. An exception taken in the court below must not be so indefinite as to leave it uncertain as to what it is intended to apply.

2.-: motion for new trial. To obtain a review of a case in this court, the party must first have fully and fairly presented, in the proper mode, the questions of law to the court below.

Error from the district court of Washington county.

*E. EstabrooJc,*for plaintiff in error.

*Carrigan de*Osborn, for defendant in error.

Gantt, <T.

The plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the court below, and brought this action to recover damages for an alleged conversion of property. It appears that upon a warrant of the county treasurer for that purpose, the defendant, Arnold, sheriff of the county, distrained and sold at public auction the property in question for the payment of unpaid delinquent taxes of the plaintiff. The board of county commissioners were made a party defendant, and interposed a general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. The demurrer was sustained. It is very, clear that if property seized by distress for the payment of delinquent tax is wrongfully taken by the officer charged with the collection of such tax, the county cannot be made liable in damages for such unlawful seizure, and hence there being no cause of action against the county, the demurrer was properly sustained.

The defendant, Rice Arnold, filed his second amended answer, to the second count of which the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and no exception was taken. The plaintiff filed a reply, to which *187defendant, Arnold, demurred, and the demurrer was sustained, and no exception was taken. Judgment of dismissal of the cause was entered, and also judgment in favor of defendant for costs. The record shows that the plaintiff did not appear in court at 'this time, but that afterwards and during the same term he “appeared by attorney in open court and excepted to the *order of the court*herein.” This exception is so indefinite that from an inspection of the record it is impossible to ascertain with certainty to what it was intended to apply. If the plaintiff, when he,appeared in court, which it is admitted he was in time to do, had filed the proper motion and had obtained the ruling of the court upon such motion, he might have put his case in shape to obtain a review of it in this court. But for some reason he did not do so, and as there is no error in the judgment itself, the record does not present any subject matter upon which this court can properly pass and the petition in error must be dismissed and the cause remanded to the district court.

Petition dismíssed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.1

                                  AMENDMENT #1
                                CONTRACT OF SALE
                               SECURITY AGREEMENT
                               DATED JULY 20, 2006

CAPCO FINANCIAL COMPANY - A DIVISION OF GREATER BAY BANK, N.A., has amended its
name to GREATER BAY BUSINESS FUNDING, A DIVISION OF GREATER BAY BANK N.A.,
hereinafter referred to as "GBBF":

GBBF COVENANTS:

PARAGRAPH 25

GBBF reserves the sum of ($6,000,000.00) SIX MILLION AND 00/100 for the purchase
of ALL of CLIENT's Accounts. These funds are available daily at CLIENT's option,
subject to restriction as governed by the Advance Formula. Daily availability
will be communicated to CLIENT via GBBF's Availability / Advance Request.

IS HEREBY REPLACED WITH:

GBBF reserves the sum of ($5,000,000.00) FIVE MILLION AND 00/100 for the
purchase of ALL of CLIENT's Accounts. These funds are available daily at
CLIENT's option, subject to restriction as governed by the Advance Formula.
Daily availability will be communicated to CLIENT via GBBF's Availability /
Advance Request.

PARAGRAPH 26

This Agreements initial term of Twenty Four (24) months, is hereby EXTENDED
UNTIL OCTOBER 20, 2007 and unless terminated by either party giving not less
than thirty (30) days prior written notice.

This amendment is effective and applicable to invoices purchased after July 20,
2007. All other terms, covenants and conditions will remain in effect and
unchanged.

EASYLINK SERVICES CORPORATION


By: /s/ Peter S. Macaluso
    ---------------------------------
Title: Vice President, Finance


EASYLINK SERVICES USA, INC.


By: /s/ Peter S. Macaluso
    ---------------------------------
Title: Vice President, Finance


GREATER BAY BUSINESS FUNDING, A DIVISION
OF GREATER BAY BANK N.A.


By: /s/ Heather Simon
    ---------------------------------
Title: Vice President
No: 15-031 May 12, 2015

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Seeks Comment on Draft Environmental Study 

For Medical Radioisotope Production Facility

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a draft study detailing 

environmental impacts for a proposed medical radioisotope production facility operated by SHINE 

Medical Technologies, Inc. If approved, the construction permit would give SHINE permission to build 

a facility for the production of molybdenum-99 and other radioisotopes. The facility would be located 

in Janesville, Wis., approximately 40 miles southeast of Madison. If the NRC issues a construction 

permit, then SHINE must submit a separate application for an operating license and must obtain NRC 

approval before it can operate the facility.

NRC staff will hold two public meetings on June 10 in Janesville to present the draft study’s 

findings and hear comments from the public on the document. The meetings will be held at the Rotary 

Botanical Gardens, 1455 Palmer Dr., from 2-4 p.m. and 7-9 p.m. The meetings will be transcribed, and 

one hour before the start of each session the staff will host informal (non-transcribed) discussions with 

the public at the same location. For comments to be considered they must be provided during the 

transcribed public meeting or submitted in writing by the deadline.

The NRC staff’s preliminary environmental recommendation is that the construction permit

could be issued. The staff’s conclusion is based on several factors, including its independent 

environmental review; consultation with federal, state and local agencies; consideration of public 

comments received at the public scoping meetings; and information in the SHINE application.

The construction permit review process includes examination of the potential environmental 

impacts from construction, operation and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. A separate technical 

(safety) evaluation of the application is underway. The company submitted the application in two parts 

in March and May of 2013. More information on the SHINE application is available on the NRC’s 

website. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is on the NRC website and will be available 

on the federal rulemaking website, Regulations.gov, under Docket ID NRC-2013-0053. The public can 

comment on the draft EIS through July 6. Comments can be submitted, using Docket ID NRC-2013-

0053, through Regulations.gov or by mailing them to Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: OWFN 12 H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/    Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R.McAuliffe, Jr.Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief FinancialOfficer and Director

May 10,2005

----
§ 930.130 Closure of the decision record and issuance of decision. ( a ) ( 1 ) With the exception of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary shall close the decision record not later than 160 days after the date that the Secretary's Notice of Appeal is published in the Federal Register under § 930.128(a). After closing the decision record, the Secretary shall immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that the decision record has been closed. The notice shall also state that the Secretary shall not consider additional information, briefs or comments.
( 2 ) The Secretary may stay the closing of the decision record during the 160-day period described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section: ( i ) For a specific period mutually agreed to in writing by the appellant and the State agency; or
( ii ) As the Secretary determines necessary to receive, on an expedited basis: ( A ) Any supplemental information specifically requested by the Secretary to complete a consistency review under the Act; or
( B ) Any clarifying information submitted by a party to the proceeding related to information in the consolidated record compiled by the lead Federal permitting agency.
( 3 ) The Secretary may only stay the 160-day period described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for a period not to exceed 60 days.
( b ) Not later than 60 days after the date of publication of a Federal Register notice stating when the decision record for an appeal has been closed, the Secretary shall issue a decision or publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining why a decision cannot be issued at that time. The Secretary shall issue a decision not later than 15 days after the date of publication of a Federal Register notice explaining why a decision cannot be issued within the 60-day period.
( c ) The decision of the Secretary shall constitute final agency action for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act.
( d ) In reviewing an appeal, the Secretary shall find that a proposed federal license or permit activity, or a federal assistance activity, is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Act, or is necessary in the interest of national security, when the information in the decision record supports this conclusion.
( e ) ( 1 ) If the Secretary finds that the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Act, or is necessary in the interest of national security, the Federal agency may approve the activity.
( 2 ) If the Secretary does not make either of these findings, the Federal agency shall not approve the activity.
[65 FR 77154, Dec. 8, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 831, Jan. 5, 2006]
§ 303.8 Procedure for establishing generic names for manufactured fibers. ( a ) Prior to the marketing or handling of a manufactured fiber for which no generic name has been established or otherwise recognized by the Commission, the manufacturer or producer thereof shall file a written application with the Commission, requesting the establishment of a generic name for such fiber, stating therein: ( 1 ) The reasons why the applicant's fiber should not be identified by one of the generic names established by the Commission in § 303.7 of this part;
( 2 ) The chemical composition of the fiber, including the fiber-forming substances and respective percentages thereof, together with samples of the fiber;
( 3 ) Suggested names for consideration as generic, together with a proposed definition for the fiber;
( 4 ) Any other information deemed by the applicant to be pertinent to the application, including technical data in the form of test methods;
( 5 ) The earliest date on which the application proposes to market or handle the fiber in commerce for other than developmental or testing purposes.
( b ) Upon receipt of the application, the Commission will, within sixty (60) days, either deny the application or assign to the fiber a numerical or alphabetical symbol for temporary use during further consideration of such application.
( c ) After taking the necessary procedure in consideration of the application, the Commission in due course shall establish a generic name or advise the applicant of its refusal to grant the application and designate the proper existing generic name for the fiber.
[24 FR 4480, June 2, 1959, as amended at 63 FR 7518, Feb. 13, 1998]
----

EXHIBIT 32.1 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form10-Q of Colombia Goldfields Ltd. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, Icertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: 
(1) 

the quarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Colombia Goldfields Ltd. for the quarter ended September30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
(2) 

the informationcontained in the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Colombia Goldfields Ltd.. 
By:/s/ J. Randall Martin                 Name:J. Randall MartinTitle:Chief Executive      Officer and Vice ChairmanDate:November 11, 2008
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 Bravo Resources Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Daniel  Savino,
Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.


/s/ DANIEL SAVINO
------------------------------------
Daniel Savino
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer