alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)



I, Todd Axelrod, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gallery of History,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in 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 quarterly 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 quarter period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):

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.

Date:  May 12, 2006
                                   /s/ TODD AXELROD
                                   _______________________
                                   Todd Axelrod
                                   Chief Executive Officer
2933.270 Department of Labor Board of

Contract Appeals.

(a) The Department of Labor Board of Contract Appeals (LBCA) is authorized by the Secretary to

consider and determine appeals from decisions of contracting officers arising under a contract, or

relating to a contract, made by the Department or any other executive agency when such agency or

the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy has designated the LBCA to decide the

appeal.

(b) The LBCA rules of procedure are contained in 41 CFR part 29-60.104, appearing in the July 1,

1983, edition of 41 CFR, subtitle A, chapters 19-100.

Parent topic: Subpart 2933.2 - Disputes and Appeals
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.20 Ton.

*Ton* means a short ton of 2,000 pounds.
43.9000 Policy.    (S-90) When issuing a modification to an existing contract, order, or task order that requires a change to the scope of work to be performed, the contracting officer shall complete the Memorandum for the Record (MFR) Scope Determination located at DARS PGI 43.9000(S-90). Further guidance on determining when a modification is within scope of an existing contract is contained within the Scope Determination Guide at DARS PGI 43.9000(S-90).       (S-91) Scope determinations are not required for:       (i) Administrative changes issued as modifications that do not impact the substantive rights of the parties (e.g., a change in the paying office or the appropriation data (FAR 43.101)       (ii) Unilateral modifications that are authorized by clauses other than the Changes clause (e.g., Property clause, Options clause, or Suspension of Work clause (FAR 43.103(b)(3)).       (S-92) General Counsel shall be consulted in cases where the contracting officer cannot make a clear determination whether the proposed modification is within scope of the existing contract or task order.       (S-93) In-scope changes to an existing contract shall be issued in accordance with FAR 43.2. When a proposed change requires a modification outside of the general scope of a contract the contracting officer must either:       (i) Competitively solicit the requirement; or,       (ii) Issue the modification in accordance with the non-competitive procedures at FAR 6.303, 8.405-6, or 16.505(b)(2). **Parent topic:** SUBPART 43.9000 – SCOPE DETERMINATION
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Reyes, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 159]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered May 28, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. During the grand jury presentation of this observation sale case, the prosecutor properly introduced evidence of an uncharged exchange between defendant and an unapprehended buyer which occurred several minutes before and at the same location as the defendant’s drug sale with an apprehended buyer. The uncharged exchange was admissible since it completed the narrative and was relevant to the observing officer’s ability to make a reliable identification *(see e.g. People v LaFontaine,*22 AD3d 235 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 883 [2005]). Even assuming that the prosecutor should have given a limiting instruction about the permitted purposes of this evidence, the defect fell far short of impairing the integrity of the grand jury proceeding *(see*CPL 210.35 [5]; *People v Darby,*75 NY2d 449, 455 [1990]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on a single isolated comment *360made by the prosecutor during summation. The comment was not particularly prejudicial, and by sustaining defendant’s objection the court took sufficient curative action *(see People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865 [1981]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                      19,351,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,217,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,575,280
<INVENTORY>                                 13,426,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            83,284,229
<PP&E>                                      50,463,881
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,148,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,380,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,507,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,410
<OTHER-SE>                                  89,502,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,380,684
<SALES>                                     40,076,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,076,761
<CGS>                                       15,347,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               648,054
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,567,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,300,796
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,266,730
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,266,730
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>
28.310 Contract clause for work on a

Government installation.

(S-90) Insurance is mandatory when commingling of property, type of operation, circumstances of

ownership, or condition of the contract make it necessary for the protection of the Government.

Providing accountable property (e.g., laptops) to contractors is not commingling of property.

52.228-5 requires the KO to specify the types and amounts of Insurance needed.

Insert DITCO Additional Text H7, DITCO Minimum Insurance Requirement in the contract to specify

minimum insurance required. See DARS PGI 52.

Parent topic: SUBPART 28.3 – INSURANCE
#### § 996.12 Outgoing inspection.

*Outgoing inspection* means the sampling, inspection, and certification of either: shelled peanuts which have been cleaned, sorted, sized, and otherwise prepared for further processing; or inshell peanuts which have been cleaned, sorted, and otherwise prepared for further processing.

[81 FR 50288, Aug. 1, 2016]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD * 

PRESERVING, INC., * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

V. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

 * 1:06-CV-00709-CSC 

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE * 

COMPANY, ET AL, * 

 *

 Defendants. * 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

 Comes now Louis C. Norvell and hereby appears as counsel for Defendants, American 

Home Assurance Company, AIG, American International Underwriters Corporation and 

American International Marine Agency. 

 Respectfully submitted. 

 

 s/Louis C. Norvell 

 BLANE H. CRUTCHFIELD (ASB-4243-E29B) 

 LOUIS C. NORVELL (ASB-4585-L71L) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

OF COUNSEL: 

HAND ARENDALL, L.L.C. 

Post Office Box 123 

Mobile, Alabama 36601 

Telephone: (251) 432-5511 

Facsimile: (251) 694-6375 

E-mail: bcrutchfield@handarendall.com 

E-mail: lnorvell@handarendall.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 20th day of November, 2006, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to Kenneth A. Dowdy, kad@lusklaw.com and Leslie Ann Caldwell, 

lac@lusklaw.com. 

 s/Louis C. Norvell__________________________ 

Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 17 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Keyan R. Price, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 409]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a fight with another inmate in the main yard, petitioner was observed making slashing motions toward the other inmate’s head and upper torso area. Petitioner and the inmate heeded a correction officer’s order to stop fighting and laid on the ground. After the fight, a scalpel-type weapon in a black sheath was recovered in an area nearby. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting an inmate, fighting, engaging in violent conduct, *1204disturbing the order of the facility and possessing a weapon. He was found guilty of all charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, petitioner’s plea of guilty to fighting, engaging in violent conduct and disturbing the order of the facility precludes him from challenging that part of the determination finding him guilty of these charges *(see Matter of Boyd v Goord,*18 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]). As for the remaining charges, the misbehavior report, together with the unusual incident report and testimony of officers present at the scene, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see id.,*at 1079). Notwithstanding petitioner’s claim that the weapon recovered did not belong to him, there was eyewitness testimony that petitioner was holding the weapon during the attack, thus presenting a credibility issue for the hearing officer to resolve *(see Matter of Cummings v Goord,*10 AD3d 748, 749 [2004]). Furthermore, while petitioner asserts that he was improperly denied the right to call an inmate witness because the hearing officer did not make an adequate inquiry concerning the inmate’s refusal to testify, petitioner did not raise an objection to the legitimacy of the refusal at the hearing and, therefore, may not challenge it now *(see Matter of Ryan v Goord,*12 AD3d 799, 800 [2004]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3240 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 

the tariff treatment of textile parts of seats and other furniture. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to clarify the tariff treatment of textile parts 

of seats and other furniture. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TARIFF TREATMENT OF 

4 TEXTILE PARTS OF SEATS AND OTHER FUR5 NITURE. 

6 (a) AMENDMENT TO THE HARMONIZED TARIFF

7 SCHEDULE.—The Notes to chapter 94 of the Harmonized 

8 Tariff Schedule of the United States are amended by add9 ing at the end the following Additional U.S. Note: 

10 ‘‘ADDITIONAL U.S. NOTE


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3240 IS 

1 ‘‘1. For purposes of headings 9401 and 9403, articles 

2 of cotton or other textile fibers, but not of leather, shall 

3 be classified as parts of seats or other furniture only if 

4 they have been both cut and sewn to shape and have been 

5 permanently attached to furniture framing parts or sec6 tions.’’. 

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

8 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from 

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

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, William J. Gervais, Chief Executive Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 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.







Dated: February 14, 2011
/s/ WILLIAM J. GERVAIS
 William J. Gervais
 Principal Executive Officer
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

§ 989.24 Standard raisins, off-grade raisins, other failing raisins, and raisin residual material. ( a ) *Standard raisins* means raisins which meet the then effective minimum grade and condition standards for natural condition raisins.
( b ) *Off-grade raisins* means raisins which do not meet the then effective minimum grade and condition standards for natural condition raisins: *Provided,* That raisins which are certified as off-grade raisins shall continue to be such until successfully reconditioned or become “other failing raisins.”
( c ) *Other failing raisins* means any raisins received or acquired by a handler, either as standard raisins or off-grade raisins, which are processed to a point where they qualify as packed raisins but fail to meet the applicable minimum grade standards for packed raisins.
( d ) *Raisin residual material* means defective raisins, stemmer waste, sweepings, and other residue accumulated by a handler from reconditioning raisins or from processing standard raisins and other failing raisins.
[25 FR 12813, Dec. 14, 1960, as amended at 42 FR 37201, July 20, 1977]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY BERNARD MOORER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV672-

 ) WKW

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER 

On August 23, 2006, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to add Bernard Harris

and Thomas Provitt as individual defendants in their individual capacities to this litigation 

(Doc. #8). The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to assert his claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (Doc. #8). On September 21, 2006, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII

claims with prejudice and referred the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for additional

proceedings (Doc. #9). Therefore, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff file an amended complaint, specifically setting forth his

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or before February 6, 2007. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide the mailing addresses of both Defendants

Bernard Harris and Thomas Provitt on or before February 6, 2007, for the Clerk of Court

to effectuate service of process of the summons and complaint on all Defendants.

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
DONE this 23rd day of January, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER WRIGHT, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:06-cv-0647-WKW

 )

PEMCO WORLD AIR SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Deadline to Respond to Summary

Judgment (Doc. # 26), it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s deadline to

file a response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is extended from October 16, 2007,

to October 22, 2007. The deadline for defendant’s reply brief is extended from October 30, 2007,

to November 5, 2007. 

DONE this 9th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 27 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1





     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB for the
Quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") by Tridon Enterprises,  Inc., each of
the undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report complies in all material  respects with the requirements of
          section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as
          amended, and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of  the
          operations of Registrant.


Dated:  August 19, 2002
                                             /s/ Xuedong Hu
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Name: Xuedong Hu
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                             /s/  Terence Sien
                                             -------------------------------
                                             Name:  Terence Sien
                                             Title:  Chief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 8, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00367

- CV

IN RE A.B.C., A CHILD

,

407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- PA

- 01083

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Pres iding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The State ’ s brief

is due on August 9, 2016.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of t he said

court on this 8th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Subpart 1346.4 - Government Contract

Quality Assurance

Parent topic: PART 1346 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

1346.401 General.

Agency procedures for documenting government inspection are set forth under Subpart 1346.6.
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

§ 982.450 Application of restricted obligation. ( a ) Each handler required to withhold restricted hazelnuts pursuant to § 982.50 or § 982.51 shall hold such hazelnuts separate from all other hazelnuts and shall maintain the identity of each lot so withheld. The restricted product withheld must be reported to the Board on F/H Form 1d, Restricted Inshell Certified.
( b ) Each handler making the election pursuant to § 982.50(c) in connection with certified merchantable hazelnuts which have not been handled, shall thereupon give written notification to the Board on F/H Form 4 of the particular election and of the weight and identity of the hazelnuts involved.
( c ) Pursuant to § 982.50(d), a handler may withdraw from withholding restricted hazelnuts in excess of such handler's restricted obligation upon advising the Board of the weight and lot identity of the hazelnuts to be withdrawn. When the quantity of restricted hazelnuts to be withdrawn from withholding consists of a part of a lot of ungraded hazelnuts, no part of such lot shall be withdrawn unless the remainder of such lot is reinspected and meets the requirements of § 982.51. Handlers will use F/H Form 1d prior to the end of the marketing year or F/H Form 7 after the end of the marketing year, when reporting the withdrawal of restricted hazelnuts from withholding status.
[54 FR 46720, Nov. 7, 1989]