alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of StarSoft, Inc.
(Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Marvin Wosk, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, 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 and belief:

   (1)  this quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date: August 6, 2004           /s/ Marvin Wosk
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                              Financial Officer of
                              StarSoft, Inc., Registrant





















                                 26

<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1905 Other procedures; collection of forfeiture penalties.

Nothing contained in these regulations is intended to require the Commission to duplicate administrative or other proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations, nor do these regulations supercede procedures permitted or required by other statutes or regulations. In particular, the assessment and collection of monetary forfeitures imposed by the Commission will be governed initially by the procedures prescribed by 47 U.S.C. 503, 504 and 47 CFR 1.80. After compliance with those procedures, the Commission may determine that the collection of a monetary forfeiture under the collection alternatives prescribed by this subpart is appropriate but need not duplicate administrative or other proceedings. Fees and penalties prescribed by law, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 158 and 159, and promulgated under the authority of 47 U.S.C. 309(j) (e.g., 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q) may be collected as permitted by applicable law. Nothing contained herein is intended to restrict the Commission from exercising any other right to recover or collect amounts owed to it.
#### § 50-201.105 Hours worked.

In determining the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time which is excluded by section 3(*o*) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, from the computation of hours worked for purposes of sections 6 and 7 of that act.

[18 FR 1832, Apr. 2, 1953. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, and further redesignated at 61 FR 40716, Aug. 5, 1996]
338P14-3

#### Waddell Bynum, Jr. v. Progressive Ins. Group, Inc.; Mark A. Valentine, Agent

Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appeal

Dismissed
(395) 

II. COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND FILINGS OF 

THE PARTIES PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 4, 

2010 HEARING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS 

b. Pre-Trial Filings regarding Witnesses and 

Subpoenas 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 
553
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), David C. Peterschmidt, as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, 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 his
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



|                  |  |     |  |                                                            
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | By: |  | /s/ David C. Peterschmidt                                  
|December 22, 2006 |  |     |  | David C. Peterschmidt President and Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Harold L. Covert, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, 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 his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



|                  |  |     |  |                                                                      
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | By: |  | /s/ Harold L. Covert                                                 
|December 22, 2006 |  |     |  | Harold L. Covert Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-5063.

#### Benoit *v.*Washington.

Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1929 Deduction from employee's pay. ( a ) Deduction by salary offset, from an employee's current disposable pay, shall be subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Ordinarily, debts to the United States will be collected in full, in one lump sum. This will be done when funds are available for payment in one lump sum. However, if the employee is financially unable to pay in one lump sum or the amount of the debt exceeds 15 percent of disposable pay for an officially established pay interval, collection must be made in installments.
( 2 ) The size of the installment deductions will bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay (*see* the FCCS). However, the installments will not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, unless the employee has agreed in writing to the deduction of a greater amount.
( 3 ) Deduction will generally commence with the next full pay interval (ordinarily the next biweekly pay period) following the date: of the employee's written consent to salary offset, the waiver of hearing, or the decision issued by the hearing officer.
( 4 ) Installment deductions will be pro-rated for a period not greater than the anticipated period of employment except as provided in § 1.1930.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-134: In Re GURVEY [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ElFLZFdepA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-16-2023-23-134-in-re-gurvey-order-23-134-order-8-16-2023_2175038\/\">23-134: In Re GURVEY [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-16-2023-23-134-in-re-gurvey-order-23-134-order-8-16-2023_2175038\/embed\/#?secret=ElFLZFdepA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-134: In Re GURVEY [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ElFLZFdepA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: In Re GURVEY [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-134 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Comments on: Operating Status Advisory Concerning the February 2021 Court Session
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–37

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 603, TO CLARIFY

THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT POPULARLY KNOWN AS

THE ‘‘DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT’’ TO AVIATION INCIDENTS

MARCH 2, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 85]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 603, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 603, to clarify the application of the act popularly known as the ‘‘Death on the

High Seas Act’’ to aviation incidents, under an open rule.

The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides that

each section of the bill shall be considered as read. The chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition to Members who have

preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce

voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1

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

I, David J. Johnson, 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: MAY 13, 2005


             /S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
             --------------------
             DAVID J. JOHNSON
             PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-2060: ASPEN CONSULTING, LLC v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VPWT1DTfr4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-22-2060-aspen-consulting-llc-v-secretary-of-the-army-order-22-2060-order-11-9-2022_2031343\/\">22-2060: ASPEN CONSULTING, LLC v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-22-2060-aspen-consulting-llc-v-secretary-of-the-army-order-22-2060-order-11-9-2022_2031343\/embed\/#?secret=VPWT1DTfr4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2060: ASPEN CONSULTING, LLC v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"VPWT1DTfr4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: ASPEN CONSULTING, LLC v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2060 Origin: BCA Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Comments on: Clerk’s Office Operating Status for January 21, 2021
46586.

#### MAYOR & COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLEMINGTON v. BOATWRIGHT.

(377 SE2d 843)

Decided April 6, 1989.

*Ratcliffe & Smith, James W. Smith,*for appellant.

Smith, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in *Boatwright v. Mayor &c. of*Flemington, 189 Ga. App. 676 (377 SE2d 1) (1988), to consider whether the mayor and members of the city council are parties to the case as individuals. We hold that they are not and we reverse.

The appellee, Larry Boatwright, filed a complaint in 1988 against the appellant, City of Flemington, seeking to compel the City to issue him a business license for the year 1987 and to pay him damages for failure to issue the license. The City filed a timely motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based upon the City’s sovereign immunity and also asserted that the issue of the 1987 license was moot. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court based upon its belief that the appellee might be able to show a set of facts to support his claim against the mayor and city council as individuals. We do not agree.

No individual is named as a party in the body of the complaint, and there is no allegation in the complaint that any individual engaged in any act that harmed the appellee. The mayor was served only in his official capacity, and none of the members of the city council was served individually or in their capacity as members of the city council.

This case is unlike *Hodges v. Youmans,*122 Ga. App. 487 (177 SE2d 577) (1970) because Hodges brought his “action for damages naming 23 individuals as defendants.” *Hodges v. Youmans,*120 Ga. App. 805 (172 SE2d 431) (1969). Appellee Boatwright’s complaint named only the City of Flemington as the party to the suit and no individuals were served as individuals. The appellee’s underlying assertions on appeal are limited to his argument that the City should be required to issue him a license and that the City should be required to pay him damages for its failure to issue him a license. The appellee did not make the mayor or members of the city council parties to the suit individually, he did not assert a claim against any of them individually, and he did not have them served individually, therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Marshall, C. J., not participating.*

*176*John E. Pirkle,*for appellee.
No. 11-8994.

#### Lopez *v.*Trani, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11215.

#### Grimes *v.*Alabama.

Ct. Crina. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 15.2****Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File numbers 333-33094, 333-65968, 333-97249, 333-103768 and 333-107727) and Form F-3 (File number333-135407) of National Grid plc of our report dated May 16, 2007 relating to the financialstatements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisAnnual Report on Form 20-F./S/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 2.1051 Measurements required: Spurious emissions at antenna terminals.

The radio frequency voltage or powers generated within the equipment and appearing on a spurious frequency shall be checked at the equipment output terminals when properly loaded with a suitable artificial antenna. Curves or equivalent data shall show the magnitude of each harmonic and other spurious emission that can be detected when the equipment is operated under the conditions specified in § 2.1049 as appropriate. The magnitude of spurious emissions which are attenuated more than 20 dB below the permissible value need not be specified.

[39 FR 5919, Feb. 15, 1974. Redesignated and amended at 63 FR 36599, July 7, 1998]
§ 302-5.14 What transportation expenses will my agency pay? ( a ) Your agency will authorize you to travel by any transportation mode(s) (e.g., common carrier or POV) that it determines to be advantageous to the Government. Your agency will pay for your transportation expenses by the authorized mode(s). If you travel by one or more mode(s) other than the one(s) authorized by your agency, your agency will pay your transportation expenses up to the constructive cost of transportation by the authorized mode(s). For trips of less than 250 miles, your agency will authorize travel by POV, unless there are reasons for not using a POV that are acceptable to the agency (e.g., traveler is physically impaired, does not own or lease a POV, has only one POV that is used for family transportation, or the POV is not roadworthy for such a trip). POV mileage reimbursement will be in accordance with § 302-4.300 of this chapter.
( b ) Unless the agency performs a written cost comparison that demonstrates cost savings, only common carrier may be authorized for trips with a distance of 250 miles or more.
[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18337, Apr. 1, 2011]
§ 101.533 Regulatory status. ( a ) *Initial applications.* An applicant for a 24 GHz license must specify on FCC Form 601 if it is requesting authorization to provide services on a common carrier basis, a non-common carrier basis, or on both a common carrier and non-common carrier basis.
( b ) *Amendment of pending applications.* Any pending application may be amended to: ( 1 ) Change the carrier status requested; or
( 2 ) Add to the pending request in order to obtain both common carrier and non-common carrier status in a single license.
( c ) *Modification of license.* A licensee may modify a license to: ( 1 ) Change the carrier status authorized; or
( 2 ) Add to the status authorized in order to obtain both common carrier and non-common carrier status in a single license.
[65 FR 59361, Oct. 5, 2000]