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); andc)
    
    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; andb)
    
    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)
22.1300 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for implementing the following: ( a ) The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 (38 U.S.C. 4211 and 4212) (the Act).
( b ) The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, Public Law 105-339.
( c ) The Jobs for Veterans Act, Public Law 107-288.
( d ) Executive Order 11701, January 24, 1973 (3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 752).
( e ) The regulations of the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR parts 60-300 and 61-300).
[75 FR 60251, Sept. 29, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 43577, July 25, 2014; 80 FR 75910, Dec. 4, 2015]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Abe Goldblatt, Deceased. Benjamin Goldblatt, as Administrator of the Estate of Abe Goldblatt, Deceased; Rose Meyer et al.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, on condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points upon the attorney for the respondents and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points together with the original record, with this court on or before February 28, 1961, with notice of argument for the April 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. The order of this court) entered December 1, 1960; is modified accordingly. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
#### Cross *vs.*The State of Georgia.

[Waeuee, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]

l/Evidence to the effect that a hog was heard to squeal, that the witness ran to him, that defendant ran off from him, that the hog was dead, being knocked in the head, is enough to show the taking and carrying away with intent to steal. *Lundy vs. The State*60 *Ga.,*143; *Williams vs. The State, Ib.,*367.

2. The *allegata*and *probata*sufficiently agree where the hog is described as black spotted and weighing twenty five pounds, and proven to be of that weight and having black spots, ■ though sandy colored generally. It makes no difference that the special presentment charges that the hog’s mark was unknown, and the proof is that he was in mark of the witness, who owned and identified him.

3. The fact that a grand juror’s name is on the minutes.of the court as properly drawn, is a sufficient reply to an exception to the indictment that his name was not in the jury box.

Jackson, Justice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>                
                        THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                        INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
                        STATEMENTS OF NIAGARA CORPORATION AND
                        SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
                        REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 Year             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998         
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998          
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998         
<CASH>                           440,654          
<SECURITIES>                           0                
<RECEIVABLES>                 14,149,290       
<ALLOWANCES>                     789,000          
<INVENTORY>                   30,131,877       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              45,872,951       
<PP&E>                       103,119,997      
<DEPRECIATION>                13,371,116       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               139,429,020      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         25,458,920             
<BONDS>                       41,572,250       
<COMMON>                           9,998            
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0                
<PREFERRED>                            0                
<OTHER-SE>                    54,520,545       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  139,429,020      
<SALES>                       207,546,526      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              207,546,526      
<CGS>                         177,339,749      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 177,339,749      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              15,644,702       
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0                
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            4,153,985        
<INCOME-PRETAX>               10,775,106       
<INCOME-TAX>                  4,265,000        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           6,510,106        
<DISCONTINUED>                0                
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0                
<CHANGES>                     0                
<NET-INCOME>                  6,510,106        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .66              
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .64              
        

</TABLE>
#### NOLAN, Appellant, v. NOLAN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Ann Nolan against Michael Nolan.

No opinion. The court desires to see counsel on both sides in this case at the opening of court on Monday, November 16, 1903.
RESCINDED

**Applying Federal Civil Rights Lawsto Public Charter Schools**

**Q****uestions********and****A****nswers**

 

 As part of the U.S. Department of  Education’s (ED’s) and the U.S. Department of  Justice’s (DOJ’s) efforts to support innovation and  choice within the public school system, this publication provides  important information on how public charter schools may be  developed and operated consistent with federal nondiscrimination  laws. The purpose of this publication is to answer civil  rights-related questions that charter school developers and  operators have raised.  

 The civil rights principles that  apply to charter schools are the same principles that apply to  all public schools. This publication contains no new law. Rather,  it is designed to assist charter school developers and operators  by making available a summary of civil rights issues applicable  to public schools.  

 This publication provides general  information that covers a broad range of federal civil rights  issues. It does not seek to answer every question that may arise.  In many cases, answers will turn on the particular facts of a  given situation. In others, the law regarding the issue is  evolving. Finally, other state or local civil rights requirements  or other federal laws may apply.  

 For additional information, we  encourage you to contact ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)  or visit   OCR’s Web site.   A list of the addresses and telephone  numbers of   OCR offices   is attached. DOJ contributed significantly  to this document by preparing the portions where DOJ is featured.  Contact information for DOJ and for other federal offices is  included where appropriate. OCR and DOJ can provide technical  assistance. Early consultation can help you understand and meet  these requirements.  

 

 U.S. Department of EducationOffice for Civil Rights May 2000  

-###-
[Table of Contents][Background]
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2394

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Leonardo Vargas-Gonzalez, *

also known as Chilango, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 3, 2008

Filed: April 9, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Acknowledging that his plea subjected him to a statutory minimum prison term

of 10 years, Leonardo Vargas-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), (viii), 846. The district court1

 calculated an advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range of 120-135 months, and sentenced Vargas-Gonzalez

to 120 months. On appeal, his counsel seeks permission to withdraw and has filed a
-2-

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is

unreasonable in light of Vargas-Gonzalez’s Category I criminal history and the lower

sentences of some co-conspirators, and that the requirement of a government motion

to depart below the mandatory minimum violates the separation-of-powers doctrine.

We conclude that Vargas-Gonzalez’s sentence is not unreasonable because the

district court did not have discretion to sentence him below 120 months, absent a

substantial-assistance motion by the government under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) or

qualification for relief from the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). See

United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon,

330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928,

932 (8th Cir. 2007) (court of appeals accords sentence within advisory Guidelines

range presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008). We have

previously held that the requirement of a government motion to depart below the

mandatory minimum does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. See United

States v. Holbdy, 489 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2007). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court. We also grant counsel’s request to withdraw, subject to the

condition that counsel comply with the requirements of Part V of this court’s Plan to

Implement the Criminal Justice Act by advising Vargas-Gonzalez of the procedures

for filing a petition for writ of certiorari pro se.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


                              FAB INDUSTRIES, INC.


                            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 Fab Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samson Bitensky, 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, 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/ Samson Bitensky
-------------------------
Samson Bitensky
Chief Executive Officer
July 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Fab Industries, Inc. and will be
retained by Fab Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education300 Sower Blvd., 5th FloorFrankfort, KY 40601Phone: (502) 564-3141Website: http://www.education.ky.gov

### State Higher Education Agency

Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority100 Airport RoadFrankfort, KY 40602-0798Phone: (502) 696-7200Toll-Free: (800) 928-8926Fax: (502) 696-7496Website: https://www.kheaa.com/

### Special Education Agency

Office of Teaching and LearningDivision of Learning Services300 Sower Blvd., 5th FloorFrankfort, KY 40602Phone: (502) 564-4970Fax: (502) 564-6721Website: http://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/Pages/default.aspx

### State Adult Education Agency

Kentucky Adult Education SkillsCouncil on Postsecondary Education Suite 250 100  Airport Road Frankfort, KY 40601 Phone: (502) 573-1555 Website: https://cpe.ky.gov/

Back to state map
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Marchese, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 17, 1962, which denied, without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered" September 13, 1960 after a jury trial, convicting him of 'burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. The basis for the relief sought by defendant is that, immediately following the verdict of the jury on May 26, 1960, his retained counsel had agreed to file a notice of appeal; that his mother had visited counsel’s office on June 8, 1960 and several times thereafter; and that on each occasion counsel had assured her that “ everything was being taken care of” and that he would “take care of the matter promptly.” Nevertheless, no notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction had been filed and the time within which to file it had expired. Thereafter and on April 25, 1961, about seven months after the rendition of the judgment, the defendant’s counsel, in response to an inquiry about the status of the appeal, advised defendant that if he wished him to take an appeal he will do so upon the payment of a certain fee plus the printing expenses. Assuming that defendant’s assertions are true, the failure to fila a timely notice of appeal was attributable to defendant’s retained attorney and not to the law-enforcement agencies of the State, as were the situations in *People*v. *Guhr*(5 A D 2d 688) and in *People*v. *Sairston*(10 N Y 2d 92). While the remedy of *coram nobis*was held to be available to defendant: (a) in *People*v. *Stanley*(12 N Y 2d 250), where it clearly appeared that defendant was prevented from perfecting the appeal because he lacked financial means to procure the trial minutes; and (to) in *People*v. *Adams*(12 N Y 2d 417), where defendant’s court-assigned lawyer failed to “follow through ” on the appeal, it should be noted that a timely notice of appeal had been filed in each case. That was not the situation at bar. This court is not empowered to enlarge the time to appeal, and it cannot assume to exercise such power indirectly. If the time to appeal is to be extended it must be done by legislative action. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
# Table-69
217.7403 Policy. DoD policy is that undefinitized contract actions shall— ( a ) Be used only when— ( 1 ) The negotiation of a definitive contract action is not possible in sufficient time to meet the Government's requirements; and
( 2 ) The Government's interest demands that the contractor be given a binding commitment so that contract performance can begin immediately.
( b ) Be as complete and definite as practicable under the particular circumstances.
#### In the Matter of John R. King, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, et al., Respondents.

Upon the prior appeal (16 A D 2d 1007) we found that there was “ proof of several transactions of Espinosa and Benitez with petitioner which, if credited, would warrant findings of misconduct” but we were compelled to remit, holding that since the Commissioner made no factual findings it was “impossible to determine which of the acts testified to were considered to have been established ”. The record developed upon remittal and now before us contains adequate findings of repeated acts of misconduct, amply supported by proof which the Commissioner was entitled to, and specifically did find credible and which he was also justified in finding so serious as to warrant petitioner’s dismissal. Determination confirmed, without costs. Present — Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
From: Tim Mitro To: Sutkus, Carol@ARB ; Hicks, Austin@ARB ; Lewis, Monica@ARB Cc: Christopher D. Brown AICP ; Sondra Spaethe Subject: Feather River AQMD - SIP Submittal - Rule 10.9 - Final Date: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:36:20 PM

To ARB Rule Group,

On October 6, 2014, the Feather River AQMD’s Board of Directors approved the amendments to District Rule 10.9. The District is requesting to submit this rule revision into the SIP.

The District previously submitted the 2009 version of Rule 10.9 for SIP consideration. The 2009 version was forwarded by CARB to EPA, and upon EPA review, an issue was identified that affected the SIP approvability of the rule. Hence, the District would like to withdraw the previous 2009 SIP submittal.

The District is requesting that this 2014 rule package is fast-tracked to EPA to replace the 2009 rule package.

As previously discussed, the District has uploaded the required documents onto Dropbox. You can find the required information at the following URL: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vcin68zihlf5ju5/AABl5fMm5VMlSM2riWti4E_Ra?dl=0

The required documents for Feather River AQMD’s inclusion of Regulation X, Rule 10.9 – Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits and Banking into the SIP include the following:

- SIP Checklist 10.9

- SIP eval form 10.9

- Rule 10.9 (Final)

- Rule 10.9 Resolution

- Rule 10.9 Public Notice

- Rule 10.9 Staff Report (Final)

- Rule 10.9 Lineout-Strikeout

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Timothy Mitro Feather River AQMD - Air Quality Engineer (530) 634-7659 ext. 208 1007 Live Oak Blvd, Suite B-3 Yuba City, CA 95991 www.fraqmd.org
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 969 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 969

 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand 
the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent 
        who serves in the reserve component of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2017

Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Markey, Mr. Van 
 Hollen, and Ms. Warren) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand 
the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent 
        who serves in the reserve component of the Armed Forces.

    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 ``Supporting Children of the National 
Guard and Reserve Act''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL STATE REPORT CARD.

    Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``on 
active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(5) of such title)''.
                                 <all>
```