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

RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION


I, Lorena Jensen, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Quantum Energy, Inc., (the
"Registrant").

(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
the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

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

(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  Registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

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

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

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

Date:  June 12, 2006

By: /s/ Lorena Jensen
---------------------
Name:  Lorena Jensen
Title:    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
§ 330.55 Basis for removal from participation. A participant may be removed from the Multiclass Securities program if the Association, in its discretion, determines that any of the following exists or has occurred: ( a ) The participant, at any time, fails to meet any condition for eligibility;
( b ) The participant fails to comply with any provision of the Multiclass Guide or this part;
( c ) The participant is unable or fails to truthfully, correctly or fully submit such certifications as are required; and
( d ) Such further reasons as the Association determines necessary to protect the safety and soundness of the Multiclass Securities program, as set out in the Multiclass Guide.
Order entered January 4, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01712-CR

SHELDON ROBERTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F04-73256-T

ORDER

Appellant’s December 31, 2012 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief 

is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief received by the Clerk of the Court on December 31, 2012 is 

DEEMED timely filed on the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### § 886.320 Default under the contract.

The contract shall contain a provision to the effect that if HUD determines that the owner is in default under the contract, HUD shall notify the owner of the actions required to be taken to cure the default and of the remedies to be applied by HUD including recovery of overpayments, where appropriate, and that if the owner fails to cure the default within a reasonable time as determined by HUD, HUD has the right to terminate the contract or to take other corrective action, including recission of the sale. When contract termination is under consideration by HUD, HUD shall give eligible families an opportunity to submit written and other comments. Where the project is sold under the arrangement that involves a regulatory agreement between HUD and the owner, a default under the regulatory agreement shall be treated as default under the contract.
### §1200a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 6, 1954, ch. 463, §4, 68 Stat. 453, which related to preparation of an appraisal schedule for negotiation of amount of just compensation payable for the property conveyed pursuant to former section 1199(a) of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### 12 

# Fiscal Year 2013-14 District Budget

Actual Adopted Est. Act. Proposed
FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Licenses & Permits Evaluation Fees 286,373 $ 209,840

$ 304,822

$ 260,000

$ Asbestos Notification Fees 87,918 82,400

66,588

80,000 Reevaluation Fees 1,203,714 868,795

855,815

480,000 Air Toxics (AB 2588) 5,829 5,461

6,553

5,668 Application Fees 117,484 113,300

135,564

125,612 Annual Emission Fees 970,904 933,180

960,000

949,567 Notice of Violation 433,632 175,000

371,344

225,000 Inspection Fees 23,968 19,615

17,998

20,524 Source Test Fees 82,684 87,515

55,363

91,128 DAS 378,577 379,204

281,475

382,806 Monitoring 571,474 582,588

582,585

590,842

Use of Money Interest 47,067 75,000

30,000

50,000

Federal, State, and Other Governments Federal - EPA Grant 498,003 475,000

475,000

475,000 Motor Vehicle $4 1,346,887 1,360,000

1,360,000

1,363,334 Motor Vehicle $2 682,455 679,999

679,999

681,666 State-PERP 54,353 54,165

83,367

54,165 State-ARB 103,821 100,000

100,000

100,000 Other Governments 163,323 162,061

162,061

161,714

Charges for Services Environmental Review 8,621 9,000

6,620

7,000 356,613 369,149

375,000

372,010 513,649 500,126

540,000

491,168 750,761 686,769

686,796

736,094

Miscellaneous Revenue 9,022 2,040

2,040

2,000

Revenue Total 8,697,132 7,930,207

8,138,990

7,705,298

Other Financing Sources Decrease in Fund Balance 634,810 1,228,033

1,228,033

1,248,104

Revenue Plan Total 9,331,942 $ 9,158,240

$ 9,367,023

$ 8,953,402

$ REVENUE PLAN

Reimburseable Charges AQAP Fees Carl Moyer Program
### §595. King Hill project, Idaho

King Hill project, Idaho, shall be subject to the reclamation Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, so far as applicable and consistent with contract made prior to July 1, 1918, between the United States and King Hill irrigation district: Provided, That for the purposes of issuing patent to lands reclaimed, the reclamation effected by the operations of the United States Reclamation Service may be considered by the Secretary of the Interior as equivalent to reclamation effected by the State of Idaho, under section 641 of this title.

(July 1, 1918, ch. 113, 40 Stat. 674.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The reclamation Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of act of June 17, 1902, to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Change of Name

The Reclamation Service, established in July 1902, changed to the Bureau of Reclamation on June 20, 1923, then to the Water and Power Resources Service on Nov. 6, 1979, and then to the Bureau of Reclamation on May 18, 1981. See 155 Dep't of the Interior, Departmental Manual 1.1 (2008 repl.); Sec'y Hubert Work, Dep't of the Interior, Order (June 20, 1923); Sec'y Cecil D. Andrus, Dep't of the Interior, Secretarial Order 3042, §§1, 4 (Nov. 6, 1979); Sec'y James G. Watt, Dep't of the Interior, Secretarial Order 3064, §§3, 5 (May 18, 1981).

#### 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3232 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3232

       To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of fungicide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2005

  Mr. Buyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of fungicide.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF FUNGICIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.11.03      Mixtures of         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         fungicide                                                          31/2008
                         containing
                         Myclobutanil (1H-
                         1,2,4-Triazole-1-
                         propanenitrile, -
                         butyl-(4-
                         chlorophenyl)) as
                         the active
                         ingredient and
                         application
                         adjuvants (CAS
                         No. 88671-89-0)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3808.20.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 26, 2016

p0718

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2016

150515

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150515

COA: 323426

Muskegon CC: 13-064018-FH

DANIEL JENARO QUIJAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Muskegon Circuit Court for 

consideration of the defendant’s issue regarding the assessment of court costs. In all 

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §57. Authenticated copies or extracts from records as evidence

Any copy of or extract from the plats, field notes, records, or other papers of the offices of the former surveyors general for the districts of Oregon and California, when authenticated by the seal and signature of the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate, shall be evidence in all cases in which the original would be evidence.

(R.S. §2224; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1144; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section is from a part of R.S. §2224, as affected by act Mar. 3, 1925. The original text provided for the continuation of the use of the official seals authorized for the offices of the surveyors general of Oregon, California, and Louisiana. This provision was superseded by act Mar. 3, 1925 (classified to section 51 of this title), abolishing the office of surveyor-general. The rest of the section became inapplicable to Louisiana upon the discontinuance of the office of surveyor general of Louisiana pursuant to R.S. §2218. The text of this section was changed to provide for authentication by the supervisor of surveys, instead of a surveyor-general, in view of act Mar. 3, 1925 (classified to section 51 of this title) abolishing the office of surveyor general and transferring its activities to the Field Surveying Service, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supervisor of Surveys. See, also, Transfer of Functions note below.

R.S. §2224 derived from act Mar. 3, 1853, ch. 145, §§2, 11, 10 Stat. 245, 248.

#### **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.

"Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate" substituted for "Supervisor of Surveys" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3021 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3021

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
      program through September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2005

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
      program through September 30, 2005, 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 ``TANF Extension Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK 
              GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005.

    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV of the 
Social Security Act, and by section 1108(b) of such Act, shall continue 
through September 30, 2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 
2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant 
to this authority through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the 
level provided for such activities through the fourth quarter of fiscal 
year 2004.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ``June 
30'' and inserting ``September 30''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE 
              AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 
              2005.

    Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social 
Security Act shall continue through September 30, 2005, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury 
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and 
payments may be made pursuant to this authority through the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities 
through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004.
                                 <all>
```
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Ex Parte Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Hay02373_motion-deny.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE VERNON HAY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ROBERT SILLEN, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-02373 JW (PR)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME; VACATING HEARING SET

FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2010

(Docket No. 78)

Defendants K. Clark Kelso and Robert Sillen have filed a motion for an

extension of time to file dispositive motion(s). (Docket No. 78.) Defendants filed a

motion to dismiss on November 30, 2009, to which Plaintiff’s opposition is due no

later than December 30, 2009. The motion will be deemed submitted as of the date

Defendants’ reply brief is due. Should the Court decide to deny the motion, a new

briefing schedule for a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion

shall be ordered at that time. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for an extension of

time (Docket No. 78) is DENIED as unnecessary. 

Furthermore, the motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted on the papers. 

Accordingly, the hearing set for February 1, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED. No

hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

December 23, 2009 

Case 3:09-cv-02373-RS Document 96 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE VERNON HAY JR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT SILLEN, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-02373 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Joe Vernon Hay J-92547

Pitches Detention Center (PDC)

P. O. Box 86164

Terminal Annex

Los Angeles, CA 90086-0164

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

1/15/2010 1/15/2010 /s/

Case 3:09-cv-02373-RS Document 96 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 51.205 Mitigating measures. Application of the standards for determining an Acceptable Separation Distance (ASD) for a HUD-assisted project from a potential hazard of an explosion or fire prone nature is predicated on level topography with no intervening object(s) between the hazard and the project. Application of the standards can be eliminated or modified if: ( a ) The nature of the topography shields the proposed project from the hazard.
( b ) An existing permanent fire resistant structure of adequate size and strength will shield the proposed project from the hazard.
( c ) A barrier is constructed surrounding the hazard, at the site of the project, or in between the potential hazard and the proposed project.
( d ) The structure and outdoor areas used by people are designed to withstand blast overpressure and thermal radiation anticipated from the potential hazard (e.g., the project is of masonry and steel or reinforced concrete and steel construction).
1

The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge

for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-1798

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Southern District of Iowa.

Nathaniel David Hammond, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 27, 1995

 Filed: January 4, 1996 ___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

 Nathaniel David Hammond appeals the 14-month sentence imposed

by the district court1 following his guilty plea to one charge of

defrauding a bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and one count

of unauthorized use of an access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1029. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although we granted him leave to do so,

Hammond has not filed a supplemental brief.

Counsel's Anders brief raises two issues. The first argument

is that the district court incorrectly concluded Hammond inflicted

a loss of $75,402.61, which resulted in a six-level increase in

Hammond's base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2F1.1(b)(1)(G). Hammond maintained in his written objections to
-2-

the presentence investigation report that $8,000 of the total loss

attributable to him should be excluded from the loss calculation,

because this amount reflected credit card charges that were never

claimed as a loss by the card holders. We disagree. A district

court "need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the

available information." U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 comment. (n.8). Under

section 2F1.1, the defendant is responsible for the total value of

the possible loss, rather than the actual loss. See United States

v. Smith, 62 F.3d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995). Hammond never

maintained, much less showed, that the $8,000 in credits to him

derived from legitimate transactions. Therefore, the district

court did not clearly err in assessing $75,402.61 as the total loss

Hammond attempted to inflict. See United States v. Bender, 33 F.3d

21, 23 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court's factual findings as to

amount of loss under § 2F1.1 reviewed for clear error). 

The second argument is that the district court erred in

considering at sentencing information derived from a prior

psychological evaluation of Hammond that was not related to this

case. We are persuaded upon our review of the record, however,

that the district court did not consider the information, and that

any error in failing to explicitly state that the court would not

consider the material was harmless. See United States v. Beatty,

9 F.3d 686, 690-91 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court's failure to

comply with Rule 32(c) was harmless error).

We have reviewed the record to determine whether any other

nonfrivolous issues exist, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no such issues. 

Accordingly, Hammond's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. James Alfredo, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,599.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.