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



CERTIFICATION





I, Richard R. Walters, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company;

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 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 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 annual report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual 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 (fourth 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:

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:  March 29, 2006



By:   /s/ Richard R. Walters



Richard R. Walters, President



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(76 South. 466)

#### EDMUNDS v. STATE.

(5 Div. 249.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 26, 1917.)

Criminal Law &wkey;763, 764(7) — Trial — Charge on Effect of Testimony — Statute.

In a prosecution for violating the prohibition laws, the charge that, if the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence as it had been offered, the court held it would render defendant guilty of that number of .violations of the prohibition law, was erroneous, as an invasion of the jury’s province, and a charge on the effect of the testimony, in violation of Code 1907, § 5362, providing that the court shall not charge on the effect of the testimony, unless required by a party.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Russell County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Ben Edmunds was convicted of violating

the prohibition laws, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Glenn & De Graffenried, of Seale, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of violating the prohibition laws of the state. Numerous exceptions were reserved, pending the trial, to the ruling of the court upon the evidence, and to several portions of the court’s oral charge, and also to the giving and refusal of several special charges requested in writing. An exception was duly reserved to the oral charge of the court as follows:

> “If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence as it has been offered, the court holds, would render the defendant guilty of that number of violations of the prohibition law.”

This was error, it being an invasion of the province of the jury, and was clearly a charge upon the effect of the testimony, in violation of section 5362 of the Code of 1907. See authorities collated as a footnote to that section.

For this error the judgment of the lower court will be reversed, and the cause remanded. In view of this holding, it is not deemed necessary to discuss other questions presented. ■

Reversed and remanded.
§ 1921.4 Answer. ( a ) *Filing and service.* Within 14 days after the service of the complaint, the respondent shall file an answer with the Chief Hearing Examiner. The answer shall be signed by the respondent or his attorney.
( b ) *Contents; failure to file.* The answer shall: ( 1 ) Contain a statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and shall specifically admit, explain, or deny, each of the allegations of the complaint unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the answer shall so state; or
( 2 ) State that the respondent admits all of the allegations of the complaint. The answer may contain a waiver of hearing. Failure to file an answer to or plead specifically to any allegation of the complaint shall constitute an admission of such allegation.
( c ) *Procedure upon admission of facts.* The admission, in the answer or by failure to file an answer, of all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint shall constitute a waiver of hearing. Upon such admission of facts, the hearing examiner without further hearing shall prepare his decision in which he shall adopt as his proposed findings of fact the material facts alleged in the complaint. The parties shall be given an opportunity to file exceptions to his decision, and to file briefs in support of the exceptions.
#### § 4044.14 Priority category 4 benefits.

The benefits assigned to priority category 4 with respect to each participant are the participant's guaranteed benefits, except as provided in the next sentence. The benefit assigned to priority category 4 with respect to a participant is not limited by the aggregate benefits limitations set forth in § 4022B.1 of this chapter for individuals who are participants in more than one plan or by the guarantee limitation applicable to majority owners set forth in § 4022.26.

[61 FR 34059, July 1, 1996, as amended at 76 FR 34606, June 14, 2011; 83 FR 49806, Oct. 3, 2018]
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATE
      OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**OF
      DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC. (REGISTRANT)**


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




I,
      David
      B. Swank, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of
      my
      knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18
      U.S.C. Section 1350) that:




(1)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, which
      this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      the
      Registrant.




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter
      63
      title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




Date:
              November 14,
              2007
            
            
            /s/ DAVID
              B.
              SWANKDavid
                B. Swank
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
#### Smith *vs.*Pepoon.

*Double costs*are allowed in the court for the correction of errors, on the affirmance of a judgment for the default of the plaintiff in error to appear and argue when the cause is called on the calendar.*

J. Van Burén appeared for the defendant in error, on the [ *252 ] cause being, called on for argument, and on producing proof *of due service of notice of argument on the attorney for the plaintiff in error, moved that the judgment be affirmed with *double*costs. He said that such was the practice of the supreme court.

*

 This order made 19th November, 1840.

The Chancellor

said the motion ought to prevail. If the plaintiff had appeared and argued his case, and it had appeared that the writ of error was frivolous, it would have been of course to allow double costs. Not having appeared, the court could not know whether the writ of error was frivolous or not, without looking into the record, which would not be done when the plaintiff did not' appear to argue. He thought, therefore, it would be well to adopt the practice of the supreme court in such cases, and accordingly proposed that the judgment be affirmed with *double costs,*or in the words of the statute, that the plaintiff in error be allowed “ twice the amount of his taxed bill of costs.” The court concurring in the suggestion of the chancellor, a rule was entered accordingly.
# Diario Oficial C 184A/17 d

| | ISSN 1725-244X |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 184A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 47o año17 de julio de 2004 |

ISSN 1725-244X

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 184A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

47o año17 de julio de 2004

---

| Número de información | Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informaciones |
| | Consejo |
| 2004/C 184A/1 | | 1 |

Número de información

Sumario

Página

III   Informaciones

Consejo

2004/C 184A/1

1

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

III Informaciones

Consejo

| 17.7.2004 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2004

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 184/1

---

ANUNCIO DE PUESTO VACANTE

(Ref. A/014)

DIRECTOR GENERAL

(2004/C 184 A/01)

La Secretaría General del Consejo de la Unión Europea desea cubrir un puesto de Director General en la Dirección General H — Justicia y Asuntos de Interior.

Para obtener más información (disponible en francés y en inglés), así como los formularios de presentación de candidaturas, deberá dirigirse al servicio de selección y contratación en la dirección de correo electrónico: service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int o en el sitio web: http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Fin del plazo de presentación: 3 de septiembre de 2004, de lo que dará fe el matasellos de correos.

---
§ 2700.56 Discovery; general. ( a ) *Discovery methods.* Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: Depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; or requests for admissions, for production of documents or objects or for permission to enter upon property for inspecting, copying, photographing, and gathering information.
( b ) *Scope of discovery.* Parties may obtain discovery of any relevant, non-privileged matter that is admissible evidence or appears likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
( c ) *Limitation of discovery.* Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought or upon his own motion, a Judge may, for good cause shown, limit discovery to prevent undue delay or to protect a party or person from oppression or undue burden or expense.
( d ) *Initiation of discovery.* Discovery may be initiated after an answer to a notice of contest, an answer to a petition for assessment of penalty, or an answer to a complaint under section 105(c) or 111 of the Act has been filed. 30 U.S.C. 815(c) and 821.
( e ) *Completion of discovery.* Discovery shall not unduly delay or otherwise impede disposition of the case, and must be completed at least 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. For good cause shown, the Judge may extend or shorten the time for discovery.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 44208, Aug. 4, 2006]
Exhibit 32.2











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 Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Scott, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Treasurer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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/ Mark Scott


Mark Scott


Chief Financial Officer and Secretary-Treasurer








Date: May 13, 2010
§ 2584.8477(e)-2 Allocation of fiduciary duties. ( a ) The fiduciary duties of the Board as set forth at 5 U.S.C. 8472 may not be allocated to any person other than a member or members of the Board.
( b ) The Executive Director may allocate authority and responsibility for the investment and management of the Fixed Income Investment Fund to a qualified professional asset manager(s).
( c ) The Executive Director may allocate authority and responsibility for the investment and management of the Government Securities Investment Fund, the Common Stock Index Investment Fund, the International Stock Index Investment Fund and the Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment Fund to an investment manager(s).
( d ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, no allocation may be made which would constitute: ( 1 ) A violation of an express policy of the Board; or
( 2 ) An invalid delegation according to the Act or any other law.
( e ) Except as provided in this part, no person who has or may acquire fiduciary responsibility in connection with the Thrift Savings Fund may allocate such responsibility to another person.
[53 FR 52687, Dec. 29, 1988, as amended at 65 FR 34394, May 30, 2000]
#### § 1921.15 Transmittal of record.

Immediately following the period allowed for filing exceptions, the hearing examiner shall transmit the record of the proceeding to the Assistant Secretary. The record shall include: The pleadings, motions, and requests filed, and rulings thereon; the transcript of the testimony taken at the hearing, together with the exhibits filed; any documents or papers filed in connection with prehearing conferences; such proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders, and supporting reasons, as may have been filed in connection with the hearing; the hearing examiner's decision; and such exceptions, statements of objections, and briefs in support thereof, as may have been filed in the proceeding.
Positive Control Reference Studies

WIL

- 99418: Method Validation of Kinder Scientific Acoustic Startle Equipment i n Rats using Chlorpromazine (MRID # 47574701)

WIL

- 99435: A Positive Control Validation Study of Locomotor Activity in Rats (MRID # 47574702)

WIL

- 9943 8 : A Positive Control Validation Study of Learning and Memory in Neonatal Rats (MRID # 4757470 3 )

WIL

- 994 40 : A Positive Control Validation Study of Auditory Startle Response in Rats (MRID # 47574704 )

WIL

- 994 41 : A Positive Control Validation Study of Locomotor A ctivity in Rats (MRID # 47574705 )

WIL

- 994 4 3 : A Positive Control Acute Neurotoxicity Study in Rats (MRID # 4757470 6 )
#### § 4000.5 Does the PBGC have discretion to waive these filing requirements?

We retain the discretion to waive any requirement under this part, at any time, if warranted by the facts and circumstances.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33797-33798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12954]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6704-8]


Minnesota: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Minnesota has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the 
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes include granting the State 
authority for the wood preserving rules, petroleum refinery sludge 
listings, and technical amendments to existing regulations. EPA 
proposes to grant final authorization to Minnesota. In the ``Rules and 
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the 
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior 
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not 
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have 
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the 
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this 
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will 
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take 
further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose this 
action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take 
effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule 
based on this proposal. You

[[Page 33798]]

may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on 
this action, you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments referring to Docket Number Minnesota 
ARA 8, to Gary Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA 
Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 886-7450. Please refer to Docket Number MN ARA 8. You can examine 
copies of the materials submitted by Minnesota during normal business 
hours at the following locations: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 
520 Lafayette Road, North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, contact Nathan 
Cooley (651) 297-7544, and EPA Region 5, contact Gary Westefer, 
Minnesota Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Westefer at the above address and 
phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Elissa Speizman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5 .
[FR Doc. 00-12954 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 1000 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NM

- 048

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Replacement 1.0 $ 85.00 

### $0 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analys **is** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
e ither a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
PROMISSORY NOTE



$56,948.00                                                     January 31, 1999


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of fifty-six thousand nine
hundred and forty- eight and 00/100 DOLLARS ($56,948.00) with interest accruing
on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
the entire principal balance plus accrued interest being due and payable on
demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:       6/9/99
     -----------------------

Signature:    /S/
          ------------------