alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

I, Jose Manuel Garica, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bionova Holding Corporation;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a.             designed suchdisclosure controls, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

b.             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.             disclosed in thisquarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

a.             all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: December 2, 2003 |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
|                        |   | /s/ JOSE MANUEL GARCIA |   |
|                        |   | Jose Manuel Garcia |
|                        |   |  Chief Executive Officer |
|                             |        |  |  |  |

 

----
### §390h–29. Redwood City recycled water project

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the City of Redwood City, California, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of recycled water system facilities.

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the cost of the project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the project.

#### (c) Limitation

The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,100,000.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1646, as added Pub. L. 110–229, title V, §512(a)(1), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 842.)
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


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








In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §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: November 18, 2004
By:
/s/ *George P. Morris*George P. MorrisChairman and Chief Executive Officer





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit 32
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neil Charette, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered March 26, 1976, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review an order of the same court, dated September 19, 1975, which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of prejudicial delay between the date of the criminal transaction alleged in the indictment and the filing of the sealed indictment. Case remanded to the County Court for a hearing and a new determination on defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that there had been prejudicial preindictment delay, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The mere claim by the District Attorney of an ongoing narcotics investigation, and the need to protect the undercover police operative, is an insufficient basis upon which to deny, without a hearing, a motion to dismiss an indictment upon the ground of preindictment delay, where a potential for prejudice to the defendant’s rights appears and is raised. Under such circumstances, this court has held that a hearing is required (see *People v Townsend,*38 AD2d 569; see, also, *People v Valentin,*46 AD2d 906; *People v Lewis,*49 AD2d 912). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.
§ 51.43 Persons born outside the United States applying for a passport for the first time. ( a ) *General.* A person born outside the United States must submit documentary evidence that he or she meets all the statutory requirements for acquisition of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality under the provision of law or treaty under which the person is claiming U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.
( b ) *Documentary evidence.* ( 1 ) Types of documentary evidence of citizenship for a person born outside the United States include: ( i ) A certificate of naturalization.
( ii ) A certificate of citizenship.
( iii ) A Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
( 2 ) An applicant without one of these documents must produce supporting documents as required by the Department, showing acquisition of U.S. citizenship under the relevant provisions of law.
### §338. Election to perfect entry; final proof

Any desert-land entryman or his assignee entitled to the benefit of section 337 of this title may, if he shall so elect within sixty days from the notice therein provided, pay to the officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior of the local land office the sum of 50 cents per acre for each acre embraced in the entry, and thereafter perfect such entry upon proof that he has upon the tract permanent improvements conducive to the agricultural development thereof of the value of not less than $1.25 per acre, and that he has, in good faith, used the land for agricultural purposes for three years and the payment to the officer, at the time of final proof, of the sum of 75 cents per acre: Provided, That in such case final proof may be submitted at any time within five years from the date of the entryman's election to proceed as provided in this section, and in the event of failure to perfect the entry as herein provided, all moneys theretofore paid shall be forfeited and the entry canceled: Provided, That in cases where such entries have been assigned prior to March 4, 1915, the assignees shall, if otherwise qualified, be entitled to the benefit hereof.

(Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 147, §5, 38 Stat. 1162; Mar. 21, 1918, ch. 26, 40 Stat. 458; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of fourth paragraph of section 5 of act Mar. 4, 1915. First paragraph of such section 5, which was classified to section 26 of former Title 41, Public Contracts, was repealed by act June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title VI, §602(a)(26), 63 Stat. 401, eff. July 1, 1949, renumbered Sept. 5, 1950, ch. 849, §6(a), (b), 64 Stat. 583; second and third paragraphs of such section 5 are classified to sections 335 and 337 of this title, respectively.

Act Mar. 21, 1918 added the last proviso.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

"Officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior" substituted for "register" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, which abolished all registers of district land offices and transferred functions of register of district land offices to Secretary of the Interior. See section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3, of 1946, set out as a note under section 1 of this title. Previously, references to "receiver" changed to "register" by acts Oct. 28, 1921, and Mar. 3, 1925, which consolidated offices of register and receiver and provided for a single officer to be known as register.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their capacity as

Trustees of the Cement Masons Health and

Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California,

Cement Masons Pension Trust Fund for Northern

California, Cement Masons Vacation/Holiday

Trust Fund for Northern California, Cement

Masons Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund

for Northern California,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES B. HARDING CONSTRUCTION,

INC.,

Defendant. /

No. CV-09-2053 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED plaintiff’s motion for default judgment

is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5900 and

costs in the amount of $710.97.

Dated: January 5, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-02053-MMC Document 30 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          41,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,624
<PP&E>                                          10,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,796
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           150
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,290
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,870
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (827)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    820
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                820
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       820
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Isaac, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on May 4, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). No opinion. Concur—Silverman, J. P., Fein, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.410 Implementation of plan. ( a ) *Deadline for notifications.* ( 1 ) The manufacturer must complete the notifications carried out under a plan approved by an SAA or the Secretary under § 3282.408 on or before the deadline approved by the SAA or Secretary. In approving each deadline, an SAA or the Secretary will allow a reasonable time to complete all notifications, taking into account the number of manufactured homes involved and the difficulty of completing the notifications.
( 2 ) The manufacturer must, at the time of dispatch, furnish to the SAA or the Secretary a true or representative copy of each notice, bulletin, and other written communication sent to retailers, distributors, or owners of manufactured homes regarding any serious defect or imminent safety hazard that may exist in any homes produced by the manufacturer, or regarding any noncompliance or defect for which the SAA or Secretary requires, under § 3282.413(c), the manufacturer to submit a plan for providing notification.
( b ) *Deadline for corrections.* A manufacturer that is required to correct a serious defect or imminent safety hazard pursuant to § 3282.406(b) must complete implementation of the plan required by § 3282.408 on or before the deadline approved by the SAA or the Secretary. The deadline must be no later than 60 days after approval of the plan. In approving the deadline, the SAA or the Secretary will allow a reasonable amount of time to complete the plan, taking into account the seriousness of the problem, the number of manufactured homes involved, the immediacy of any risk, and the difficulty of completing the action. The seriousness and immediacy of any risk posed by the serious defect or imminent safety hazard will be given greater weight than other considerations.
( c ) *Extensions.* An SAA that approved a plan or the Secretary may grant an extension of the deadlines included in a plan, if the manufacturer requests such an extension in writing and shows good cause for the extension, if the SAA or the Secretary decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. When the Secretary grants an extension for completion of any corrections, the Secretary will notify the manufacturer and must publish notice of such extension in the Federal Register. When an SAA grants an extension for completion of any corrections, the SAA must notify the Secretary and the manufacturer.
( d ) *Recordkeeping.* The manufacturer must provide the report and maintain the records that are required by § 3282.417 for all notification and correction actions.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3037 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3037

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from 
          the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2005

  Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Farr, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Stark, and Mr. 
  Grijalva) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from 
          the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

    Paragraph (16) of section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(16)'' at the beginning and inserting 
        ``(16)(A)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial hemp. As 
used in the preceding sentence, the term `industrial hemp' means the 
plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or 
not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not 
exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.''.

SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY STATES.

    Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Industrial Hemp Determination to Be Made by States.--In any 
criminal action, civil action, or administrative proceeding, a State 
regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp under State 
law shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any such plant 
meets the concentration limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) of 
paragraph (16) of section 102 and such determination shall be 
conclusive and binding.''.
                                 <all>
```
### Iowa magnetic and gravity maps and data: A web site for distribution of data

By: Robert P. KucksPatricia L. Hill

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds135

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
#### § 24.1 Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement).

The policies, procedures, and requirements for debarment, suspension, and limited denial of participation are set forth in 2 CFR part 2424.

[72 FR 73491, Dec. 27, 2007]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:00:16-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
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 accompanying Yearly Report of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig A. Zabala, Chief
Executive 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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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/
      Craig A. ZabalaCraig
      A. Zabala, Chief Executive OfficerMarch
      30, 2005
- Surv00
- Surv00a
- Surv00b
- Surv01
- Surv02
- Surv03
- Surv04
- Surv05
- Surv06
- Surv07
- Surv08
- Surv09
- Surv10
- Surv11
- Surv12
- Surv13
- Surv14
- Surv15
- Surv16
- Surv18

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-31T02:06:32-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### TRIO MARKETERS, INC. *v.*TERRY A. SEKELSKY

(AC 25824)

Bishop, DiPentima and Gruendel, Js.

Argued May 25

officially released June 28, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Acevedo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 7, 1976, convicting him of felony murder, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The court .properly denied defendant’s trial and pretrial motions. His trial was fair and was free from error in the admission of evidence, the remarks of the prosecutor and the charge of the court. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.