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

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Jacob Inbar, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
June 30, 2008

/s/JACOB INBAR

---

Jacob Inbar, Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 43 8

. SHARON BU SH ELLI SON v

. A LAN DUNBAR A/ K/ A ALAN

J ACKSON.

Sh aro n Bu s h El li s o n s o u g h t t o fi l e a c o m p l ai n t i n fo rm a p au p eri s. Th e t ri al

co u rt d en i ed h er req u es t

, an d El l i s o n fi led th i s ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

.

El l i so n , h o wev er, i s en t i t l ed t o ap p eal t h e ru l in g d i rect l y

.

Un d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -2 (d ), wh en a p art y p res en t s a c i v i l act i o n fo r fi l i n g in

fo rm a p au peri s

, t h e t ri al co u rt i s req u i red t o rev i ew t h e pl e a d i n g

. I f th e “ p l ead i n g

s h o ws o n i ts face s u ch a co m p l et e ab s en ce o f an y ju s t i ci ab l e i s s u e o f l aw o r fact t h at

i t can n o t be reas o n ab ly b el i ev ed t h at t h e co u rt co u l d g ran t an y rel i ef ag ai n s t an y p art y

n am ed i n t h e p l ead i n g

, t h en t h e ju d g e s h al l en t er an o rd er d en y i ng fi l i ng o f t h e

p l ead i n g .” OCGA § 9 -1 5-2 (d ). An o rd er d en y i ng a p l ead in g u nd er t h i s s t at u t e m ay

b e ap peal ed d i rect l y . See i d

.

W e wi l l g ran t an o th erwi s e t i m el y ap pl i cat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary ap p eal i f t h e

l o wer co u rt ’ s o rd er i s s u b j ect t o d i rect ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd i n g l y

,

t h i s ap p l icat io n i s h ereb y GRANTED, an d El l i s o n s hal l h av e t en d ay s fro m t h e d at e

o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i c e o f a p p eal wi t h t h e tri al co u rt

. If s h e h as al read y fi l ed a

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n th e t ri al co u rt

, s he n eed no t fi le a s eco n d n o t i ce. Th e cl erk o f t h e

t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e a co p y of t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t t ed to

t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s July 13, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/13/2016
No. 11-1150.

#### Simon et al. *v.*Continental Airlines, Inc.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re HDJ Construction, LLC, * Original Mandamus Proceeding

No. 11-24-00226-CV * September 19, 2024

 * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered HDJ Construction, LLC’s motion to dismiss its

petition for writ of mandamus and concludes that the motion should be granted. 

Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the petition for writ of mandamus 

is dismissed. We further dismiss any other pending motions as moot, and we also 

withdraw our order dated August 19, 2024, staying the proceedings in the trial court.
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF COTELLIGENT, INC. (THE COMPANY)

AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004



|                                          |  |                                                             
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation of Organization
|bSmart, to LLC                            |  | Delaware Limited Liability corporation                      
|Cotelligent USA, Inc.                     |  | California corporation                                      
|CZG Mobile Ventures, Inc.                 |  | Delaware corporation                                        
|Jas Concepts, Inc.                        |  | Pennsylvania corporation                                    
|Recency Media, Inc.                       |  | Delaware corporation                                        
|Recency Media USA, Inc.                   |  | Delaware corporation                                        
|R. Reed Business Systems Consulting, Inc. |  | Illinois corporation                                        
|Watchit Media, Inc.                       |  | Delaware corporation                                        
|Watchit Media USA, Inc.                   |  | Delaware corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 2,538
<SECURITIES>                                           3,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       3,058,788
<PP&E>                                                 1,161,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                         42,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         5,183,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,125,317
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            9,000
<COMMON>                                               7,370
<OTHER-SE>                                             4,041,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           5,183,542
<SALES>                                                12,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       12,625
<CGS>                                                  31,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          31,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       170,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (319,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (319,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (319,307)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0


</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
2017 Annual Equity Incentive Plan


The 2017 Annual Equity Incentive Plan provides for the issuance of equity incentive awards in the form of (i) non-qualified stock options; (ii) time-based restricted stock units; and (iii) performance-based restricted stock units.


	
				
	Executive Officer
	Time-Based Restricted Stock Units 
(# shares)
	Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units 
(# shares)
	Non-Qualified Stock Options (# shares)

	Douglas C. Bryant
President and Chief Executive Officer
	20,250
	20,249
	40,499

	Michael D. Abney, Jr.
Senior Vice President, Distribution
	7,172
	7,171
	14,343

	Robert J. Bujarski
Senior Vice President, Business Development and General Counsel
	7,172
	7,171
	14,343

	Werner Kroll
Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	7,172
	7,171
	14,343

	Edward K. Russell
Senior Vice President, Global Commercial Operations
	7,172
	7,171
	14,343

	Randall J. Steward
Chief Financial Officer
	7,594
	7,593
	15,187






The vesting period for the non-qualified stock is over four years with the first 50% of such option awards vesting at the end of the second-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder vesting 25% annually on each of the following two anniversaries thereafter.    


The vesting period for the time-based restricted stock units is 100% of such equity awards vesting at the end of the four-year anniversary of the grant date.    


The vesting for the performance based restricted stock units (PSUs) is over a three year time period and is tied to the achievement of net revenue growth targets.  If the net revenue targets are achieved, then the PSUs will vest 100% upon the third anniversary of the Equity Grant Date.  If the company has not achieved the annual net revenue growth targets at the end of the three year period, the PSUs will be canceled.  The PSUs may vest early upon early achievement of the three year net revenue growth targets.  The net revenue calculation will be adjusted for influenza revenue volatility.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4(c).9
 20 October 2006
    
    Sir John Parker FREngChairmanD: +44 (0) 20 7004 3010Ms Linda L Adamany
    
    F: +44 (0) 20 7004 301235  37 Grosvenor Square
    
    M: +44 (0) 7831 496201Flat 24
    
    john.parker@ngrid.comLondonW1K 2HN
   Appointment
 Time Commitment  1 2




---



##### 



Role
 
    
    provides effective business leadership of the Company within a framework of prudent
and effective controls which enable risk to be assessed and managed;
    
    sets the Companys strategic aims, ensures that the necessary financial and human
resources are in place for the Company to meet its objectives, and reviews management
performance; and
    
    sets the Companys values and standards and ensures that its obligations to its
shareholders and others are understood and met.
  
    
    Strategy:Non-executive Directors should constructively challenge and contribute to
the development of strategy;
    
    Performance:Non-executive Directors should scrutinise the performance of
management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitor the reporting of
performance;
    
    Risk:Non-executive Directors should satisfy themselves that the financial function
of the Company is professionally managed and that financial controls and systems of
risk management are robust and defensible; and
    
    People:Non-executive Directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels
of remuneration for Executive Directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where
necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
 Committees




---



##### 



Fees
    Outside interests
 Independence
  Confidentiality




---



##### 



Induction
  Review Process
 Insurance
 Indemnity
  Independent Professional Advice




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Entire Agreement
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Y3K Secure  Enterprises  Software,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"), I, King Cole, President and CEO of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350),  that to my
knowledge:

      (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 result of  operations of the
Company.



/s/ King Cole
-------------------
King Cole
President and CEO
May 7, 2004
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Quarterly Report of HIV-VAC Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the year period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murray, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         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 such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the
         period ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HIV-VAC
         Inc.

Date: September 30, 2011

/s/ Kevin Murray
Kevin Murray
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4522 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4522

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authorization of 
appropriations of the Federal Communications Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1994

    Mr. Markey (for himself and Mr. Fields of Texas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authorization of 
appropriations of the Federal Communications Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Federal Communications Commission 
Authorization Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

    Section 6 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 156) is 
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``There are authorized to be appropriated for the administration of 
this Act by the Commission $188,400,000 for fiscal year 1995, together 
with such sums as may be necessary for increases resulting from 
adjustments in salary, pay, retirement, other employee benefits 
required by law, and other nondiscretionary costs, for fiscal year 
1995. Of the sum appropriated in each fiscal year under this section, a 
portion, in an amount determined under section 9(b), shall be derived 
from fees authorized by section 9.''.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT  99.2
                                  HIV-VAC, INC.
                            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 HIV-VAC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2001, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sally Del Principe the
Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.





                                                     /s/ Sally Del Principe
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

October 22, 2002





                                       20
504 P.2d 499

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Carlynn SORRELL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 446.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

Jan. 9, 1973.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Louis A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.

EUBANK, Presiding Judge.

The defendant entered his guilty plea to the crime of aggravated assault (A.R.S. §§ 13-241, 13-245, subsec. A, par. 6, as amended) following a plea bargain which resulted in the dismissal of the charge of armed robbery and a recommendation by the County Attorney to the court for probation.

The trial court at the change of plea hearing conducted an extensive personal examination of the defendant which fully established that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily pled guilty to the offense and, in addition, fully established a factual basis adequate to support the guilty plea.

The counsel for the defendant filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) brief questioning whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him. As we have already indicated, the record shows that he did so understand. Further, we have reviewed the record for fundamental error and found none.

Judgment is affirmed.

CONCURRING:

JACOBSON, C. J., Division 1, and HAIRE, J., concur.
§ 27.1253 Sunset provisions. ( a ) BRS licensees will maintain primary status in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band unless and until an AWS licensee requires use of the spectrum. AWS licensees are not required to pay relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset (*i.e.* fifteen years from the date the first AWS license is issued in the band). Once the relocation rules sunset, an AWS licensee may require the incumbent to cease operations, provided that the AWS licensee intends to turn on a system within interference range of the incumbent, as determined by § 27.1255. AWS licensee notification to the affected BRS licensee must be in writing and must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the spectrum. After the six-month notice period has expired, the BRS licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the parties have entered into an agreement which allows the BRS licensee to continue to operate on a mutually agreed upon basis.
( b ) If the parties cannot agree on a schedule or an alternative arrangement, requests for extension will be accepted and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The Commission will grant such extensions only if the incumbent can demonstrate that: ( 1 ) It cannot relocate within the six-month period (*e.g.*, because no alternative spectrum or other reasonable option is available); and
( 2 ) The public interest would be harmed if the incumbent is forced to terminate operations.
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 Annual  Report of Crazy  Woman  Creek  Bancorp
Incorporated  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal  year ended  September  30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  we, Gary
J. Havens,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and John B. Snyder,  Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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/Gary J. Havens                     /s/John B. Snyder
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Gary J. Havens                        John B. Snyder
President and Chief Executive Officer Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




December 30, 2002
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.95 Violation of consent orders.

Violation of a consent order shall subject the consenting party to any and all sanctions which could have been imposed in the proceeding resulting in the consent order if all of the issues in that proceeding had been decided against the consenting party and to any further sanctions for violation noted as agreed upon in the consent order. The Commission shall have the burden of showing that the consent order has been violated in some (but not in every) respect. Violation of the consent order and the sanctions to be imposed shall be the only issues considered in a proceeding concerning such an alleged violation.

[41 FR 14871, Apr. 8, 1976]