alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joey Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, 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's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 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 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the 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; 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; and

6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly 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.

                                              DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2006


                                              /S/ JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                              --------------------
                                              JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                              CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
4451 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:22:32-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick Evans, Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Province Diamonds Inc. (the Company), hereby 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:

1.

the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (the Annual Report) fully complies 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | By:    | /s/ Patrick Evans      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Patrick Evans          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | July 24, 2009          

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---
No. 11-1164.

#### Pleasant *v.*Neesmith Timber Co., Inc.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 302-17.31 What are the procedures for calculation and payment of my RITA?

The procedures for the calculation and payment of your RITA depend on whether your agency has chosen to use a one-year or two-year RITA process. See Subpart F for the one-year process and Subpart G for the two-year process.
Argued and submitted April 28,

affirmed November 2, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*TRAVIS EUGENE DAVIS, *Appellant.*

(92-CR-944; CA A79002)

884 P2d 588

Steven V. Humber, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. ORS 138.222(2)(d); *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993); *State v. Kilborn,*120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993); *State v. Johnston,*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156, *rev den*317 Or 272 (1993).
EXHIBIT 99.1



                                 July 1, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.


     Arthur Andersen SpA has represented to Centerpoint Corporation that its
audit was subject to the firm's quality control system for the U.S. accounting
and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit,
availability of U.S. national office consultation and availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant
portions of the audit.

                              Sincerely,

                              CENTERPOINT CORPORATION


                              By: /s/ David Fuller
                                  ------------------------------------------
                                  David Fuller, Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)








I, Floyd Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies 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 operations  of the Company.





Dated:  March 18, 2011




/s/ Floyd WarkolFloyd Warkol

Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/LOUIS

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPEAR 

PRO HAC VICE, CONSENT TO DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILING

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for 

Marvin Putnam, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of 

Electronic Filing (the “Motion”), pursuant to the Rules Governing the Admission, Practice, Peer 

Review, and Discipline of Attorneys in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida and Section 2B of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. This Court having considered 

the Motion and all other relevant factors, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

The Motion is GRANTED. Marvin Putnam may appear and participate in this action on 

behalf of Thomas Brady and Gisele Bündchen. The Clerk shall provide electronic notification of 

all electronic filings to Marvin Putnam, at Marvin.Putnam@lw.com.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at , Florida, this 

day of .

 

 United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 14-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1275

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bjorn Christian Luster

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: September 12, 2014

Filed: September 17, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Bjorn Luster directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district

court imposed after he pled guilty to possessing a destructive device. His counsel

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), arguing that the district court procedurally erred by basing its selection

of Luster’s sentence on an unproven fact, and that the court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did

not procedurally err or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (setting forth

standards for reviewing sentencing decisions; where sentence falls within Guidelines

range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of

reasonableness); see also United States v. Bolanos, 409 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir.

2005) (where there are two permissible views of evidence, factfinder’s choice

between them cannot be clearly erroneous).

Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-2-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: JESSICA MORRIS, GLENN RIGGS, AMY 

DALEY, MIKE SELLEN, KENNETH HOWARD, 

MICHAEL SADOWSKI, 

Appellants

______________________

2023-1015

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/458,603.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 23-1015 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2023
2 IN RE: MORRIS 

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

April 14, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 14, 2023

Case: 23-1015 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/14/2023
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40669-40670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[Document Identifier: HCFA-0367, 0367a, b, and c]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is 
publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public 
comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility 
of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of 
the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology to minimize the information 
collection burden.
    Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently 
approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Drug 
Rebate Program--Manufacturers; Form No.: HCFA-0367 and 0367a, b, and c 
(0938-0578); Use: Section 1927 requires drug manufacturers to enter 
into and have in effect a rebate agreement with

[[Page 40670]]

the Federal Government for States to receive funding for drugs 
dispensed to Medicaid recipients; Frequency: Quarterly; Affected 
Public: Business or other for-profit; Number of Respondents: 551; Total 
Annual Responses: 2,204; Total Annual Hours: 54,660.
    To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms 
for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's 
Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail 
your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and 
HCFA document identifier, to [email protected], or call the Reports 
Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and 
recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed 
within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB 
Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 25, 2000.
John P. Burke III,
HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA Office of Information Services, 
Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-16597 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-M
```
# Comments on: Notice of Designation of Court Access Coordinators and Update to the Guide for Oral Argument
46807.

#### THOMPKINS v. STUBBS.

(380 SE2d 711)

Decided April 13, 1989.

Gary- B. Thompkins, *pro se.*

*William J. Smith, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Marshall, Chief Justice.

This case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a superior court judge to act on a petition for the writ of habeas corpus.

In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and the petition is therefore dismissed.

*Petition for writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
145P16

#### State v. Christopher Lynn Hallum

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-526)

Denied
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.2002 Applicants required to submit information. ( a ) In order to be eligible for any new, modified, and/or renewed instrument of authorization from the Commission, including but not limited to, authorizations issued pursuant to sections 214, 301, 302, 303(1), 308, 310(d), 318, 319, 325(b), 351, 361(b), 362(b), 381, and 385 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, by whatever name that instrument may be designated, all applicants shall certify that neither the applicant nor any party to the application is subject to a denial of Federal benefits that includes FCC benefits pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 21 U.S.C. 862. If a section 5301 certification has been incorporated into the FCC application form being filed, the applicant need not submit a separate certification. If a section 5301 certification has not been incorporated into the FCC application form being filed, the applicant shall be deemed to have certified by signing the application, unless an exhibit is included stating that the signature does not constitute such a certification and explaining why the applicant is unable to certify. If no FCC application form is involved, the applicant must attach a certification to its written application. If the applicant is unable to so certify, the applicant shall be ineligible for the authorization for which it applied, and will have 90 days from the filing of the application to comply with this rule. If a section 5301 certification has been incorporated into the FCC application form, failure to respond to the question concerning certification shall result in dismissal of the application pursuant to the relevant processing rules.
( b ) A party to the application, as used in paragraph (a) of this section shall include: ( 1 ) If the applicant is an individual, that individual;
( 2 ) If the applicant is a corporation or unincorporated association, all officers, directors, or persons holding 5% or more of the outstanding stock or shares (voting and/or non-voting) of the applicant; and
( 3 ) If the applicant is a partnership, all non-limited partners and any limited partners holding a 5% or more interest in the partnership.
( c ) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are not applicable to the Amateur Radio Service, the Citizens Band Radio Service, the Radio Control Radio Service, to users in the Public Mobile Services and the Private Radio Services that are not individually licensed by the Commission, or to Federal, State or local governmental entities or subdivisions thereof.
( d ) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are applicable to spectrum lessees (*see* § 1.9003 of subpart X of this part) engaged in spectrum manager leasing arrangements and *de facto* transfer leasing arrangements pursuant to the rules set forth in subpart X of this part.
[57 FR 187, Jan. 3, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 8701, Feb. 17, 1993; 60 FR 39269, Aug. 2, 1995; 68 FR 66277, Nov. 25, 2003]
136P16

#### State v. Maurice Parker

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Cumberland County

Dismissed
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134831 & (8) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134831 COA: 279095 Wayne CC: 80-032542 PHILLIP ELLIOTT JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 14, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502 (G). The motion to remand is DENIED.

p1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
No. 11-5195.

#### Volz *v.*Rozum, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Somerset, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4365 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4365

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to repeal the requirement 
that employers report information to the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage 
                               Data Bank.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1994

 Mr. Pomeroy (for himself, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Coppersmith, 
  Mr. Hamburg, Mr. Minge, Ms. Shepherd, Mrs. Thurman, and Mr. Pastor) 
   introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the 
          Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to repeal the requirement 
that employers report information to the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage 
                               Data Bank.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EMPLOYER REPORTING REQUIREMENT UNDER MEDICARE AND 
              MEDICAID COVERAGE DATA BANK.

    (a) In General.--Section 1144 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1320b-14), as added by section 13581(a) of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (hereafter referred to as ``OBRA-1993''), is 
amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (c); and
            (2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (f) as subsections 
        (c) and (d), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1144 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1320b-14) is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``and subsection 
        (c)'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``1998--'' and all 
        that follows and inserting the following: ``1998, (subject to 
        the restriction in subparagraph (D)(i) of section 6103(l)(12) 
        of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to disclose any 
        information in the Data Bank obtained pursuant to such section 
        solely for the purposes of such section.''; and
            (3) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subsection 
        (a)(2)), by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect January 1, 1994.

                                 <all>
```
No. D-2678.

#### In re Discipline of Agiliga.

Alexander Nnanna Agiliga, of Largo, Md., is suspended from the practice of *985law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, . requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.