alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I,  Anil  K.  Jain,  certify  that:

1.   I  have  reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of APA Enterprises, 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  represent  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.   APA Enterprises, Inc.'s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a and 15(e)) for APA Enterprises, Inc. and we have:

     a)   Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  ensure that
          material  information relating to APA Enterprises, Inc., including its
          consolidated  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report
          is  being  prepared;

     b)   Evaluated  the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures
          as of a date and presented in this annual report our conclusions about
          the  effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          our  evaluation.

     c)   Disclosed  in  this  report  any  change  in  APA  Enterprises, Inc.'s
          internal  control  financial  reporting  that occurred during the most
          recent  fiscal  quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely  to  materially  affect,  the  Company's control over financial
          reporting.

5.   APA  Enterprises,  Inc.'s  other  certifying officers and I have disclosed,
     based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation of internal control over financial
     reporting,  to  our  auditors  and  the  audit  committee  of  our board of
     directors:

     a)   All  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation  of  internal  controls  over  financial reporting which are
          reasonably  likely to adversely affect APA Enterprises, Inc.'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
          controls  over  financial  reporting.

June  28,  2005


Signature:  /s/  Anil  K.  Jain
            -------------------
Print  Name:  Anil  K.  Jain
              --------------
Print  Title:  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer
               ---------------------------------------------------------
8.005 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.208-9, Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply and Services, in

solicitations and contracts that require a contractor to provide supplies or services for Government

use that are on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who

Are Blind or Severely Disabled. The contracting officer shall identify in the contract schedule the

supplies or services that shall be purchased from a mandatory source and the specific source.

Parent topic: Part 8 - Required Sources of Supplies and Services
PROB 22 DOCKET NUMBER (Tran. Court)
(Rev. 2/88) 1:97CR13-017

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION
DOCKET NUMBER (Rec, Court)

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROBATIONER/SUPERVISED RELEASEE: DISTRICT DIVISION
Clyde Turner Deloach Florida Northern Gainesville
NAME OF SENTENCING JUDGE

Honorable Maurice M. Paul, Senior United States District Judge

DATES OF PROBATION/SUPERVISED | FROM TO

RELEASE: 03/10/2009 | 03/09/2012

OFFENSE

Count 1: Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Cocaine and Methamphetamine

Count 2: Tampering with a Witness

PART 1 - ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3605 the jurisdiction of the probationer or supervised
releasee named above be transferred with the records of the Court to the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Georgia, Valdosta Division, upon that Court’s order of acceptance of jurisdiction. This Court hereby expressly consents
that the period of probation or supervised release may be changed by the District Court to which this transfer is made
without further inquiry of this Court.*

25, La V puereie 70) Gore

7
Dat Senidh United States District Judge

*This sentence may be deleted in the discretion of the transferring Court.

PART 2 - ORDER ACCEPTING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Middle District of Georgia

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that jurisdiction over the above-named probationer/supervised releasee be accepted
and assumed by this Court from and after the entry of this order.

&200l flv tina

Effective Date United States Bistrict Judge
#### Margaret Leahy, as Guardian ad Litem of Wallace H. Tyler, Appellant, v George H. Manwaring et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendants, entered October 6, 1978 in Broome County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury. Plaintiff Wallace H. Tyler, by his guardian ad litem, commenced this action to set aside a deed by which he conveyed his farm to defendants. The complaint alleges that plaintiff had become mentally incompetent and unable to manage his own affairs, and defendants took undue advantage of his mental condition to obtain the deed. The complaint also alleges that plaintiff was induced to convey the farm to defendants by reason of their false and fraudulent representations. The trial court concluded that plaintiff was capable of understanding and appreciating the nature and consequences of the transaction involving the sale, and that he did not sell the farm under the compulsion of a mental disorder. The court further concluded that there was no evidence of fraud on the part of the defendants. The record contains ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions. Both medical and lay testimony introduced by defendants showed that Tyler was rational and was not suffering from a mental disorder or lack of capacity to understand the consequences of his sale of the farm *(Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd. of City of N. Y.,*25 NY2d 196). The testimony presented by plaintiff merely raised credibility questions which were for the trial court to resolve (see *Atlas Die Casting v Lendino,*49 AD2d 917), and its decision here should not be disturbed since it is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see *Gallinger Real Estate v Muíale Dev. Corp.,*53 AD2d 1014). We have examined plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
116 STAT. 1052 PUBLIC LAW 107–213—AUG. 21, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 601:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–34 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–181 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): May 1, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–213

107th Congress

An Act

To redesignate certain lands within the Craters of the Moon National Monument,

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. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL

LANDS RECENTLY ADDED TO CRATERS OF THE MOON

NATIONAL MONUMENT, IDAHO.

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The approximately 410,000 acres of land

added to the Craters of the Moon National Monument by Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 2000, and identified

on the map accompanying the Proclamation for administration by

the National Park Service, shall, on and after the date of enactment

of this Act, be known as the ‘‘Craters of the Moon National Preserve’’.

(b) ADMINISTRATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by paragraph (2),

the Craters of the Moon National Preserve shall be administered in accordance with—

(A) Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9,

2000;

(B) the Act of June 8, 1906, (commonly referred to

as the ‘‘Antiquities Act’’; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431);

and

(C) the laws generally applicable to units of the

National Park System, including the Act entitled ‘‘An Act

to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes’’, approved August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

(2) HUNTING.—The Secretary of the Interior shall permit

hunting on lands within the Craters of the Moon National

Preserve in accordance with the applicable laws of the United

States and the State of Idaho. The Secretary, in consultation

with the State of Idaho, may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting may be permitted for reasons

of public safety, protection of the area’s resources, administration, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any

regulations prescribing such restrictions relating to hunting

shall be put into effect only after consultation with the State

of Idaho.

Approved August 21, 2002.

16 USC 431 note,

698w.

Aug. 21, 2002

[H.R. 601]
16.603 Letter contracts.

16.603-1 Description.

16.603-2 Application.

16.603-3 Limitations.

16.603-4 Contract clauses.

Parent topic: Subpart 16.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** Under psX.oh an inruest In autkorizedby lew. "Any justioeof the peaoe shell be autiwrlzsd,nnd it shsll be his duty, to hold inquests

without a jury Mthin *hiis oounty, in the followingonses: 1. i2xm a per00n Lies 11~ prison. 2. 'Shm eny per- is,idU.rd,or sromauyeauud&8s8nunMtulc 8l death, 0x08@ uatlor 8ont8noo 

### afthol8u,or~thoab8aaoo ar 00 ar mo2.u

goad tita008e8.
s. 

### wh88fhob0uyorahkumu~ s-08
-.-
#### Ohio State Bar Association *v.*Zuckerman.

[Cite as *Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148.]

(No. 97-2670

Submitted June 9, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*149
      *William T. Monroe, Daniel J. Hughes, Eugene P. Whetzel*and *James Flaherty,*for relator.

*Mary L. Cibella,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, but believe a more severe sanction is warranted. The Disciplinary Rules are clear. No circumstance would have justified respondent’s payments to Linick whether they were characterized as fees or as gifts. Respondent should have known that if Linick was to receive any portion of the fees Glidden paid to respondent, Linick was required by DR 2-107 to actually have done some work or at least have assumed responsibility for the handling of the matters. Respondent should also have known that DR 2-103(B) prohibited him from paying any reward to Linick for his employment by Glidden.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
16.205-3 Limitations.

This contract type shall not be used unless-

(a) Negotiations have established that-

(1) The conditions for use of a firm-fixed-price contract are not present (see 16.202-2); and

(2) A fixed-price incentive contract would not be more appropriate;

(b) The contractor’s accounting system is adequate for price redetermination;

(c) The prospective pricing periods can be made to conform with operation of the contractor’s

accounting system; and

(d) There is reasonable assurance that price redetermination actions will take place promptly at the

specified times.

Parent topic: 16.205 Fixed-price contracts with prospective price redetermination.
32.004 Contract performance in foreign

countries.

The enforceability of contract provisions for security of Government financing in a foreign

jurisdiction is dependent upon local law and procedure. Prior to providing contract financing where

foreign jurisdictions may become involved, the contracting officer shall ensure the Government’s

security is enforceable. This may require the provision of additional or different security than that

normally provided for in the standard contract clauses.

Parent topic: Part 32 - Contract Financing
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2582 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain basketballs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain basketballs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN BASKETBALLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.95.06 Basketballs other than leather, rubber, or synthetic (provided for in subheading 

9506.62.80) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2582 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1917. EBANKS et al. v. BYRD.

In this appeal from the superior court’s grant of Christian Byrd’s petition to

legitimate his biological daughter and the denial of Max Ebanks’ petition for stepparent adoption, we granted the application for discretionary review based upon the

limited facts stated therein. In an excess of caution given the information available,

we granted the application in order to review the parties’ contentions with the benefit

of the entire record.

A careful and complete review of the entire record, the transcripts, and the

briefs of the parties reveals that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in

ruling on the petitions. Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, applicable

case law, and statutory provisions, these discretionary appeals are hereby dismissed

as having been improvidently granted. See Woody v. State, 247 Ga. App. 684, 685

(545 SE2d 83) (2001).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/29/2015

January 29, 2015
Exhibit

32.2

 

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS

ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

       In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entremetrix Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ending June 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, George Lefevre, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of theundersigned's knowledge and belief:

 

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

 

       (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

Dated: August 16,2004                                                                                                                                    By: /s/ George Lefevre
                                                                                                                                                                                   George Lefevre, Chief Financial Officer
#### The People *of*the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Goods, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 24, 1978, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The principal issue in the first three counts of the within indictment was the identity of the man who robbed the owner of the J & E Super Discount Store in Jamaica, Queens, and fired a shot at an employee therein. Defendant was arrested when he was spotted on the street by the employee who notified the storeowner who, in turn, called the police. The Trial Judge declared that although his usual practice is to the contrary, "there is no sense in my marshalling the evidence for you at this time.” However, we note that the record reveals that a three-day hiatus occurred between the close of testimony and the summations of counsel and the court’s charge. This delay was occasioned by the intervention of a religious holiday on Friday and the ensuing weekend. The court presented the jury with what has been termed a "bare bones” charge on the law, without in any way relating it to the facts. Under the instant circumstances the failure of the trial court to explain the relationship of the applicable principles of law to the factual issues in this case requires a reversal (see *People v Rivera,*60 AD2d 852; *People v Carney,*73 AD2d 972; *People v Mabry,*58 AD2d 897). We further note that, although requested by the defendant, the court refused to charge the jury as to the legal significance of a stipulation.* Such refusal was error. The significance of a stipulation is a legal concept, not within the ready grasp of lay jurors. In fact, the jury submitted a question to the court, asking if there was an affidavit for Willis Goods. The court replied: "There was no affidavit, there was just a stipulation between counsel.” Under the circumstances, the court should have explained the concept of a stipulation to the jury. Moreover, we find that since the substance of the stipulation went to the issue of identification, and since identification was the central issue in the case, this error cannot be regarded as mere harmless error. It mandates a new trial. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Laser, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

*

A stipulation entered into between the defendant and the People had been read to the jury informing them of the substance of what the defendant’s brother, Willis Goods, would have testified to had he been available for trial. At time of trial, Willis Goods was unavailable to testify because he was stationed overseas with the armed forces.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          173,028,653
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27,257,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (2,912,210)
<INVENTORY>                                       5,122,732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                209,358,864
<PP&E>                                           35,888,669
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (9,609,948)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  356,146,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23,656,208
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            44,722,714
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            636,487
<OTHER-SE>                                      282,655,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    356,146,880
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 80,943,130
<CGS>                                            47,523,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    47,523,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                117,647,486
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (81,520,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (81,520,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (81,520,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (2.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (2.02)

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED 03-17-00862-CV 21559495 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/2/2018 3:48 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK