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

I, Dinesh R. Desai, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emtec, 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 suchstatements 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 ofthe 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 wehave:

          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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter ( the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially 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 registrant's boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

          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 theregistrant'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 overfinancial reporting. 

Date: July 16, 2007 

|   | /s/ DINESH R. DESAI          Dinesh R. Desai Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### § 102-37.255 Must a SASP insure surplus property against loss or damage?

No, you are not required to carry insurance on Federal surplus property in your custody. However, if you elect to carry insurance and the insured property is lost or damaged, you must submit a check made payable to GSA for any insurance proceeds received in excess of your actual costs of acquiring and rehabilitating the property prior to its loss, damage, or destruction.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 23, 2021

No. 04-21-00297-CR

Kevin DEBNAM,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR6484

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 16, 2021. Neither the clerk’s record nor 

a supplemental clerk’s record filed in this court contains a final judgment. The deputy clerk of 

this court contacted the trial court clerk and was informed the sentencing hearing was set for 

September 13, 2021. Upon subsequent inquiries, the deputy clerk was informed that the 

September 13, 2021 sentencing hearing was continued, and there is currently no date scheduled 

for the appellant’s sentencing hearing. Absent a final judgment or other appealable order, this 

court has no jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen (15)

days from the date of this order why this appeal should be not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

All appellate deadlines in this appeal are suspended pending further order of the court.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of November, 2021.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Case 1:22-cv-23620-JEM   Document 9   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023   Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00169-CV

Austin Independent School District, Appellant

v.

Christina Bell Lowery, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN501387, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I concur in the Court’s judgment, but I would affirm the district court’s order solely

on the basis that, as matter of statutory construction, Lowery’s particular claim here does not fall

within the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement under the education code. AISD does not explain

how Lowery’s claim falls within the education code’s current exhaustion requirement. Nor does it

point to any other statutory basis for requiring Lowery to exhaust whatever administrative remedies

AISD provides under its policies or rules in addition to exhausting her remedies under the TCHRA.

We need go no further in overruling AISD’s first issue.

The majority, in my view, sweeps unnecessarily broadly in suggesting that a school

employee’s TCHRA claim could never be subject to the education code’s exhaustion requirements
2

and how, in such an instance, those statutory schemes should be reconciled.

I otherwise join in the majority’s opinion affirming the district court’s order.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices B.A. Smith, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: November 30, 2006
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

LYMAN F. BUSH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

OF BEVERLY J. BUSH, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2009-5008 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in consolidated case nos. 02-CV-1041 and 04-CV1598, Judge George W. Miller. 

__________________________ 

TOMMY J. SHELTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2009-5009 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in consolidated case nos. 02-CV-1042 and 04-CV1595, Judge George W. Miller. 

__________________________ 
BUSH v. US, 2009-5008 

SHELTON v. US, 2009-5009 

2

O R D E R 

Oral argument for these appeals is scheduled for May 

10, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 201, before the court 

en banc. These appeals will be argued together allowing 

30 minutes per side for a total argument time of 1 hour. 

The parties shall notify the clerk in writing of the name of 

the counsel who will present oral argument no later than 

April 25, 2011. 

FOR THE COURT

April 13, 2011

Date 

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

cc: Sallie W. Gladney, Esq. 

Thomas E. Redding, Esq. 

Andrew M. Weiner, Esq.
#### § 105-56.008 Pre-offset paper hearing.

If a hearing is to be held only upon written submissions, the hearing official will issue a decision based upon the record and responses submitted by both the Agency and the employee. See § 105-56.006 of this subpart. If either party, without good cause as determined by the hearing official, does not provide written submissions and documentation requested by the hearing official, the hearing official will make a determination on the claim without reference to such submissions and documentation.
#### H. H. Rich v. J. C. Lappin.

Instbuoiions, *Not Sufficient.*The district court must give its instructions to the jury in writing, when requested so to do by either party; and the giving of them orally and having them taken down by a stenographer, and after the jury has retired having them written out by the stenographer, is not sufficient.

*Error from, Comanche District Court.*

The case is stated in the opinion. Judgment for plaintiff *Lappin,*at the March term, 1888. The defendant *Rich*brings the case here.

*T. G. Chambers,*and *W. 8. Denton,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. A. Taylor,*and *C. E. Elliott,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

This was an action brought before a justice of the peace of Comanche county by J. C. Lappin against H. H. Rich, to recover $60, which the plaintiff alleges he had to pay to the defendant to procure the release from the sheriff of the county of two mules in which the plaintiff had an interest, and which had been wrongfully seized by the sheriff at the instance of the defendant. After judgment in the justice’s court, and an appeal to the district court, the case was tried before the district court with a jury, and at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendant demurred to both the plaintiff’s bill of particulars and the evidence, upon the ground that neither disclosed facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which demurrer the court overruled; and then the defendant requested the court to give written instructions to the jury, which the court refused. The record upon this subject, so far as it is necessary to quote it, reads as follows:

> “Whereupon the defendant requested the court to give written instructions to the jury in said cause; whereupon the court delivered his instructions orally, the stenographer tak*667ing them down and writing them out after the jury had retired, to all of which the defendant duly objected and excepted at the time.”

We think the court below erred. Section 275 of the civil code, so far as it is necessary to quote it, reads as follows:

> *“*The court shall give general instructions to the jury, which shall be in writing, and be numbered and signed by the judge, if required by either party. . . . All instructions given by the court must be signed by the judge, and filed, together with those asked for by the parties, as a part of the record.”

In this connection, see the following cases: *The State v. Potter,*15 Kas. 303; *City of Atchison v. Jansen,*21 id. 560.

There are other errors assigned, but we do not think that the court below committed any error except in refusing to give to the jury written instructions.

For this error the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

All the Justices concurring.
No. 11-9218.

#### Richart *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-260-000]

      ( print page 39140)    
Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding on Wednesday, June 28 at 10 a.m., at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of discussing settlement procedures.

Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).

For additional information, contact Michael D. Cotleur (202) 208-1076.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15883  Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-27   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7075

CHANTOMMIE MCBRIDE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STEVE JONES, Sergeant, Anderson County

Sheriff’s Office; BANNISTER, Anderson County

Sheriff’s Office; C. J. FULLER, Iver Police

Department; COLENNA LYNN HAMBY; HARVEY SAMUEL

GARLAND; RALF ALLEN GESELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CA-02-816-9-23)

Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 20, 2002

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chantommie McBride, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chantommie McBride appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. 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
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2000 P
§ 301-70.401 What governing policies and procedures must we establish regarding travel of an employee with a disability or special need? You must establish the policies and procedures governing: ( a ) Who will determine if an employee has a disability or special need which requires accommodation, including when documentation is necessary under §§ 301-10.103 and 301-10.121, and when a determination may be based on a clearly visible and discernible physical condition; and
( b ) Who will determine how to reasonably accommodate the employee and what expenses you will pay.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55706, Sept. 12, 2022]
#### § 102-33.395 What is FAIRS?

FAIRS is a management information system operated by GSA to collect, maintain, analyze, and report information on Federal aircraft inventories and cost and usage of Federal aircraft and CAS aircraft (and related aviation services). Users access FAIRS through a highly-secure Web site. The U.S. Government Aircraft Cost Accounting Guide (CAG) (see *http://www.gsa.gov/aviationpolicy*) contains the business rules for using the system.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 78

 To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a study and submit a 
report to the Congress on methods for identifying and treating children 
            with dyslexia in kindergarten through 3rd grade.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

   Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a study and submit a 
report to the Congress on methods for identifying and treating children 
            with dyslexia in kindergarten through 3rd grade.

    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 ``Early Detection of Dyslexia in 
Children Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT BY SECRETARY OF EDUCATION ON IDENTIFICATION 
              AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN WITH DYSLEXIA IN KINDERGARTEN 
              THROUGH 3RD GRADE.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the 
National Academy of Sciences, shall conduct a study on methods for 
identifying and treating children with dyslexia in kindergarten through 
3rd grade. In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall consider--
            (1) whether there is a biological basis for dyslexia;
            (2) whether dyslexia is caused by--
                    (A) a brain-based phonological deficit that 
                prevents an individual from breaking down written words 
                into component sounds;
                    (B) post-natal experience, including inadequate 
                instruction; or
                    (C) a combination thereof; and
            (3) the cost of implementing a program on a nationwide 
        basis to identify and treat children with dyslexia in 
        kindergarten through 3rd grade.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall prepare and 
submit to the Congress a report containing the results of the study 
conducted under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
§ 105-68.725 How much time do I have to contest a suspension? ( a ) As a respondent you or your representative must either send, or make rrangements to appear and present, the information and argument to the suspending official within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Suspension.
( b ) We consider the notice to be received by you— ( 1 ) When delivered, if we mail the notice to the last known street address, or five days after we send it if the letter is undeliverable;
( 2 ) When sent, if we send the notice by facsimile or five days after we send it if the facsimile is undeliverable; or
( 3 ) When delivered, if we send the notice by e-mail or five days after we send it if the e-mail is undeliverable.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE No.: 22-23141-CIV-DIMITROULEAS 

JAMES DUMAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WHELAN EVENT STAFFING 

SERVICES, INC, 

Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, JAMES DUMAY and Defendant, WHELAN EVENT STAFFING SERVICES, 

INC, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that this case be 

dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own fees, costs, and disbursements 

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June, 2023. 

/s/ Jorge L. Costa 

Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 533637 

Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com 

Jorge L. Costa, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1031513 

Email: JCosta@rgpattorneys.com 

REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 

2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd 

Coral Gables, Fl 33134 

Telephone: (305) 416-5000 

Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/Elizabeth M. Rodriguez

Elizabeth M. Rodriguez 

Florida Bar No. 821690 

erodriguez@fordharrison.com 

Ford & Harrison, LLP 

One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2130 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 808-2143 

Facsimile: (305) 808-2101 

Case 1:22-cv-23141-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2023 Page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on 26th day of June, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic 

filing to all counsel of record on the following Service List. 

/s/Elizabeth M. Rodriguez

 Counsel for Defendant 

SERVICE LIST 

Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 533637 

Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com 

Jorge L. Costa, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1031513 

Email: JCosta@rgpattorneys.com 

REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 

2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd 

Coral Gables, Fl 33134 

Telephone: (305) 416-5000 

Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WSACTIVELLP:14102645.1

Case 1:22-cv-23141-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 105-56.027 Centralized salary offset computer match. ( a ) Delinquent debt records will be compared with Federal employee records maintained by members of the consortium or paying agencies. The records will be compared to identify Federal employees who owe delinquent debts for purposes of collecting the debt by administrative offset. A match will occur when the taxpayer identifying number and name of a Federal employee are the same as the taxpayer identifying number and name of a debtor.
( b ) As authorized by the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716(f), FMS, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary, has waived certain requirements of the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended, for administrative offset, including salary offset, upon written certification by the creditor agency, that the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3716(a) have been met. Specifically, FMS has waived the requirements for a computer matching agreement contained in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o) and for post-match notice and verification contained in 5 U.S.C. 552a(p).
No. 11-7523.

#### Duncan v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.