alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Axcess International, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report was prepared;
 b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report (the
Evaluation Date); and
 c)
    
    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN GRIEBENOWAllan Griebenow, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Department of Education - Public Hearing

Pepperdine University - October 2, 2008

Name Organization

1 Asher, Lauren The Institute for College Access and Success

2 Barker-Garcia, Deb EdFund - Southern California Region

3 Brittain, Joy Western Association of Educational Opportunity Personnel

4 Burns, David University of California, Los Angeles

5 Carrington, Margie Canada College, Redwood CA & California Community Colleges Student 

Financial Aid Administrators Association

6 Graham, Catherine Loyola Marymount University

7 Harold, Kate Recording Industry Association of America

8 Hurley, Patricia Glendale Community College & California Association of Student Financial 

Aid Administrators

9 Iverson, Sharon American Speech Language and Hearing Association

10 Jackson, Catherine California State University, Northridge

11 Jacobson, Phyllis California Commission on Teacher Credentialing

12 Johnson, Ronald University of California, Los Angeles

13 Melgar, Jesse Student, University of California-Los Angeles & Undergraduate Student 

Association Council

14 Mital, Steve University of Oregon

15 Mozena, Elaine California State University, Northridge

16 Pomerantz, Donna American Council of the Blind

17 Ross, Jeff Taft Community College

18 Wada, Kent University of California

19 Wolff, Ralph Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges of the Western Association of 

Schools and Colleges & The Community College Commission

20 Woolsey, Janice California State University, Northridge

Office of Postsecondary Education
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clarence Moore, Appellant.

Order, entered on March 11, 1963, denying without a hearing defendant’s motion in the nature of an application for a writ of error *coram nobis,*unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and remanded to the trial court for a hearing on the application. On December 31, 1958, defendant was indicted for robbery first degree, grand larceny first degree and assault second degree. On January 6, 1959, defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On March 16, 1959 before trial, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to attempted robbery third degree to cover the entire indictment. Subsequently, defendant on April 9, 1959 was committed to the Psychopathic Ward of Bellevue Hospital in order that he might be examined and a report filed as to his mental condition. A psychiatric report dated May 8, 1959, was submitted to the court which indicated that defendant was malingering and further was capable of standing trial. On May 14, 1959, defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty and demanded a trial. The defendant’s motion was denied and he was sentenced to State prison to a term of not less than two and one-half years to five years. One month after sentencing, he was committed to Dannemora State Hospital as a mental patient and remained there for three and one-half years. Defendant contends on this application that there is sufficient evidence to establish that at the time of his being sentenced he was legally insane. In view of the short period of time between defendant’s sentence and the commitment to Dannemora State Hospital as a mental patient, defendant is at least entitled to a hearing on his application to present whatever evidence might be available in support of his contention that he was legally insane at the time he was sentenced to prison. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
# r 

# -w f) _
- .1

I 

# t i

# .. .. "' "' ;:; => 

# .. 0 ...
(October 8, 1964)

#### Harriet V. Stewart, as Administratrix of the Estate of Phillip E. Stewart, Deceased, Appellant, v. Roosevelt Hospital, Respondent

—Order, entered on December 28, 1962, denying motion for discovery and inspection, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with .$30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted. Plaintiff sought discovery of the ambulance records and an accident report made by an employee of defendant. The ambulance records are part of the records regularly kept by the defendant. As to the accident report, the proper procedure was followed by plaintiff *(Bios*v. *Donovan,*21 A D 2d 409). It does not appear that the report was attorney’s work product or defense material. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 564.57 Procedure.

Responsibility for the investigation of claims cognizable under §§ 564.51 to 564.68 and of accidents or incidents which may give rise to such claims rests in the adjutants general of the several States. Accordingly, claims received by the National Guard Bureau, or other agencies of the United States, will be referred to the adjutants general of the interested States. Regulations promulgated by the State adjutants general should require the prompt investigation of all accidents or incidents which might result in claims cognizable hereunder, whether or not claims have been filed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6792

PRESTON ANTHONY GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODERICK WARREN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-00-794-3)

Submitted: July 15, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert A. Dybing, THOMPSON & MCMULLAN, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Preston Anthony Green, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Warren appeals the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Green v.

Warren, No. CA-00-794-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2003). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 74-319.

#### Rena M. DelPivo *v.*Joseph Jalbert *et ux.*

*Joseph E. Marran, Jr.,*for plaintiff. J. *Frederick Murphy,*for defendants.

Motion of defendants to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 16(g) is granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM (CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF JUNE 30,
1997) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000017797
<NAME> CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                               PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                     $6,344,120
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     $381,148
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          $647,682
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        $540,406
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  $222,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $8,135,687
<COMMON>                                      $1,203,992
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                          ($790)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           $1,502,621
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                $2,705,823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 $0
<PREFERRED>                                      $59,376
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          $2,525,808
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                    $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                             $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                        $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    $43,436
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        $84,425
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                           $0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                      $0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                $2,716,819
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                 $8,135,687
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                     $1,382,107
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             $82,865
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    $1,089,492
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    $1,172,357
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         $209,750
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               $15,451
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  $225,201
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         $88,650
<NET-INCOME>                                    $136,551
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       $3,143
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   $133,408
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        $134,445
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        $81,148
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          $449,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      $0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      $0.93
        

</TABLE>
Order entered May 9, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 01049 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01050 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01051 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01052 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01053 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01054 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01055 - CR LORENSO DEMON HICKS , Appellant V . THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F09 - 24069 - Q , F09 - 24070 - Q, F09 - 24081 - Q, F09 - 24091 - Q, F09 - 40606 - Q, F09 - 40635 - Q, F10 - 63192 - Q 

### O RDER T he Court GRANTS appellant’s May 6, 2013 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We ORDER appellant to file the brief within THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order

. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHARON ALICIA BURKE ANZALDI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2987

)

RACHEL MARIE CANNON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi (“Anzaldi”) continues her

extraordinarily bizarre (and often regrettably misleading) course

of conduct in this pro se action brought by her (see this Court’s

July 19, 2012 memorandum order (“Order”) for a short description

of some of her earlier conduct in the case). This time she has

tendered another bulky filing (needlessly bulky, as will be

explained here) on July 30.

That new filing (Dkt. 25) begins with a photocopy of a

letter addressed to the “Freedom of Information Office, U.S.

District Court Clerk, Thomas G. Bruton,” bearing a May 10, 2012

verification. It simply doesn’t belong in this case, and it is

stricken.

Next comes a so-called Affidavit of Fact signed and verified

by Anzaldi on July 30, which states that she had attempted to

file an “Answer” on July 18 but that the document “did not appear

to be on Record with the Clerk of Court.” That is simply

false--as Order at 3 stated, “On July 18 Anzaldi showed up with a
bulky document that she said she had just filed,” and that

document is indeed of record--it is Dkt. 23. Hence Anzaldi’s

current refiling of that thick submission is stricken--indeed,

the original filing is retained, even though it contains a welter

of improprieties, simply because it reveals so much about

Anzaldi’s distorted approach in this litigation.

Just one addition before this Court closes to await

Anzaldi’s previously-ordered August 3 response. In her Affidavit

of Fact she states in part:

I would further like to mention that I will be Amending

my original Complaint, as I have the understanding the

[sic] Judge Ashman passed away in early June.

Anzaldi would be well advised to hold off on any such action (at

least briefly) until this Court has the opportunity to deal with

the case as forecast in the Order.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: August 2, 2012

2
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NWFSC Tech Memo 12: Exposure to oil from the Exxon Valdez Figure 36. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for mussels from CHE1 sampled 7/89 (sample no. 60-44) and WNB1 sampled 9/89 (sample no. 60-243). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP). Figure 37. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for mussels from WNB3 sampled 7/90 (sample no. 60-1733) and WNB3 sampled 4/91 (sample no. 60-2715). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP). Figure 38. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for mussels from CHE10 sampled 4/90 (sample no. 60-1514) and butter clams from CHE7 sampled 7/90 (sample no. 60-1753). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP). Figure 39. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for butter clams from T1 sampled 6/90 (sample no. 60-1597 and 60-1596). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP). Figure 40. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for mussels from KOD3 sampled 4/90 (sample no. 60-1846) and from OHA4 sampled 3/90 (sample no. 60-1158). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP). Figure 41. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for mussels from KOD3 sampled 3/90 (sample no. 60-1157) and 5/90 (sample no. 60-1649). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP). Figure 42. Isomer pattern graphs with peak areas normalized to the peak area of one of the C2-phenanthrene isomers(*) for butter clams from KOD3 sampled 9/90 (sample no. 60-2124 and littleneck clams from KOD3 sampled 5/90 (sample no. 60-1888). Abbreviations are in Table 1, except for biphenyl (BPH), anthracene (ANT), and benzo[e]pyrene (BEP).
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9



### Consultation on Proposed Navajo Generating Station BART Determination

Monday, August 27, 2012

12:30 PM

‐ 2:00 PM

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

1110 W. Washington St., Phoenix AZ. 85007

Room 3175 A and B

AGENDA

I. Introductions

II. Brief Background including Multi

‐ Agency Discussions

III. NGS Proposal

IV. Proposal Process and Tribal Participation

V. Adjourn

Additional Federal Agency Representation:

 US Department of Interior
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 13, 2020

Honorable Jeffrey C. Riley 

Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education 

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 

75 Pleasant Street 

Malden, Massachussetts 02148 

jriley@doe.mass.edu

Dear Commissioner Riley: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H027A180076 and H173A180039. 

The Department received your June 11, 2020 request on behalf of the Massachusetts Department

of Elementary and Secondary Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for 

Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant 

award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Laura Duos, at 

Laura.Duos@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

cc: State Director 

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30109

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Ford, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:21-CR-16-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Ford has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Ford has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30109 Document: 00516451475 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2022
No. 22-30109

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-30109 Document: 00516451475 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2022
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification  Pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act   of  2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C. 1350) the  undersigned General Partners of TASA Products  Limited, a  Washington limited partnership (the "Company"), do  hereby certify, to  the best of such General Partner's knowledge  and belief, that:

1. The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,  2010 (the  "Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in  all material  respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the  Company.

| /s/ *MICHEL E.  MAES*                    Michel E.  Maes      Co-General  Partner

Date: 3-20-11 | /s/ *JAMES R.  STEFFEY*                     James R.  Steffey      Co-General  Partner

Date: 3-20-11 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----