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

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

I, John A. Donohoe, Jr, 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 annual 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 annual 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
annual 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 12, 2003

/S/ JOHN A. DONOHOE, JR.
------------------------
John A. Donohoe, Jr
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President




                                      -21-
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4493 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4493

   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit the value of 
certain real and personal property that the debtor may elect to exempt 
                       under State or local law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1994

   Mr. Mann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit the value of 
certain real and personal property that the debtor may elect to exempt 
                       under State or local law.

    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 ``Abolition of Bankruptcy Havens 
Amendments of 1994''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by inserting ``subject to 
        subsection (n),'' after ``(2)(A)'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(n) As a result of electing under subsection (b)(2)(A) to exempt 
property that is exempt under State or local law, the debtor may not 
exempt an aggregate interest of more than $50,000 in value in real or 
personal property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as 
a residence, in a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a 
dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, or in a burial plot for 
the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on January 1, 
1995.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by section 2 
shall not apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code before the effective date of this Act.

                                      <all>
```
#### In re: Rahsaan Jamar WATKINS, Petitioner.

No. 03-7767.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2004.

Decided March 19, 2004.

Rahsaan Jamar Watkins, Petitioner pro se.

Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Rahsaan Jamar Watkins has filed three petitions for writs of mandamus, which have been docketed together for consideration. His first petition addresses the alleged difficulties he has had getting papers filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. Watkins seeks to have the magistrate judge recused from his case and an investigation ordered into the magistrate judge, district court judge, and their clerks. In his second petition, Watkins seeks an order requiring the district court to give specific reasons for failing to grant him a certificate of appealability, and in his third petition, Watkins requests that we order the district court to file his notice of appeal.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is available only where there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. *Id.*Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Catawba Indian Tribe,*973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and undisputable. *Allied*Chem. *Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Regarding Watkins’ first mandamus petition, all of Watkins’ documents were filed with the exception of a letter dated September 18, 2003, in which Watkins inquired about his reply brief. Since this letter may have been construed as an inquiry rather than a motion, it is likely that it was intentionally and properly not “filed.” The other motions were apparently not properly sent to the clerk’s office, even though Watkins was informed in an August 14, 2003 court order that his documents should be filed with the clerk’s office. In any event, Watkins fails to show prejudice from any of the filing delays, and any errors were quickly rectified. Accordingly, Watkins does not establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances for mandamus relief.

Watkins’ two other mandamus petitions are moot, as he has already received the relief he requested. The district court’s January 12, 2004 order specifically stated why Watkins’ motion for a certificate of appealability was denied, and Watkins’ notice of appeal was timely filed.

Accordingly, we grant Watkins’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his mandamus petitions. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal *45contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITIONS DENIED*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 466 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 466

  To extend until January 1, 1996, the existing suspension of duty on 
                           tamoxifen citrate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1993

  Mr. Moakley (for himself, Mrs. Kennelly, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Neal of 
Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1996, the existing suspension of duty on 
                           tamoxifen citrate.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION.

    Heading 9902.30.45 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/95''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Application.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law to 
the contrary, upon a request filed with the appropriate customs officer 
before the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption--
            (1) which was made after December 31, 1992, and before the 
        15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) with respect to which there would have been no duty if 
        the amendment made by section 1 applied to such entry or 
        withdrawal;
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amendment applied to 
such entry or withdrawal.

                                 <all>
```
Ex. 99.1

                                  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 for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kevin W. Murray,
the Chief  Executive  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/ Kevin W. Murray
                                                   -------------------

                                                   Kevin W. Murray

                                                   Chief Executive Officer


May 14, 2003







                                       20
No. 11-5337.

#### Finze *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
| 1) | to      the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | to      the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of      operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date      :  June 14, 2009 | By:  /s/ Lee Cole |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |                                 | Lee      Cole               |   |
|   |                                 | Executive      Officer      |   |

----
No. 11-1265.

#### International Strategic Partners, LLC *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-5173.

#### Fasthorse *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 54.721 General filing requirements. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided herein, a request for review of an Administrator decision by the Federal Communications Commission shall be filed with the Federal Communications Commission's Office of the Secretary in accordance with the general requirements set forth in part 1 of this chapter. The request for review shall be captioned “In the matter of Request for Review by (name of party seeking review) of Decision of Universal Service Administrator” and shall reference the applicable docket numbers.
( b ) A request for review pursuant to § 54.719(a) through (c) shall contain: ( 1 ) A statement setting forth the party's interest in the matter presented for review;
( 2 ) A full statement of relevant, material facts with supporting affidavits and documentation;
( 3 ) The question presented for review, with reference, where appropriate, to the relevant Federal Communications Commission rule, Commission order, or statutory provision;
( 4 ) A statement of the relief sought and the relevant statutory or regulatory provision pursuant to which such relief is sought.
( c ) A copy of a request for review that is submitted to the Federal Communications Commission shall be served on the Administrator consistent with the requirement for service of documents set forth in § 1.47 of this chapter.
( d ) If a request for review filed pursuant to § 54.720(a) through (c) alleges prohibitive conduct on the part of a third party, such request for review shall be served on the third party consistent with the requirement for service of documents set forth in § 1.47 of this chapter. The third party may file a response to the request for review. Any response filed by the third party shall adhere to the time period for filing replies set forth in § 1.45 of this chapter and the requirement for service of documents set forth in § 1.47 of this chapter.
[63 FR 70578, Dec. 21, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 36944, June 20, 2003]
#### J. B. Dickey, appellant, v. Thomas B. Paterson et al., appellees.

Filed September 19, 1895.

No. 6478.

Validity of Tax Deeds. The provision of section 127 of the revenue law, for the execution of tax deeds under the hand and official seal of the county treasurer, being mandatory, it follows that there is under existing laws no authority for a valid conveyance by said officer of lands sold for delinquent taxes. *(Larson v. Dielcey,*39 Neb., 465.)

Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Irvine, J.

*Saunders, Macfarland & Dickey,*for appellant.

*Howard B. Smith, contra.*

*849Post, J.

This was an action by the appellant in the district court of Douglas county for the purpose of quieting his title to the east half of lot No. 97, and all of lot No. 98, in Gise’s addition to the city of Omaha. The basis of the plaintiff’s claim to the property described is a treasurer’s tax deed executed September 14, 1889, in which it is recited that said property was, on the 1st day of August, 1887, sold for delinquent taxes for previous years. On final hearing before the district court the petition was dismissed and a decree entered in accordance with the prayer of the defendant’s cross-bill, quieting his title as against the plaintiff upon the satisfaction of the latter’s claim on account of money paid for taxes.

It is sufficient on this appeal to notice one of the many objections to the tax deed above mentioned as a basis of the plaintiff’s claim of title, viz., that it is not attested by the official seal of the county treasurer. In *Larson v. Diohey¡*■39 Neb., 463, it was held (1) that the provision of section 127 of the revenue law, requiring tax deeds to be executed under the official seal of the county treasurer, is mandatory; (2) that in the absence of a provision for a seal by. said officer, he is without authority to consummate the sale of lands for taxes by the execution of valid deeds therefor. That decision, which is not only the reasonable and natural construction of the revenue law, but the logical and necessary result of previous cases, is decisive of this controversy. It follows that the decree of the district court must be

Affirmed.

Irvine, C., not sitting.
#### § 18.209 Identification of authorized equipment.

Each device for which a grant of equipment authorization is issued under this part shall be identified pursuant to the applicable provisions of subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.

[82 FR 50834, Nov. 2, 2017]
§ 30.204 Field strength limits. ( a ) *Base/mobile operations:* The predicted or measured Power Flux Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz bands at any location on the geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed −76dBm/m2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.
( b ) *Fixed point-to-point operations.* ( 1 ) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility in the 27,500-28,350 MHz band where the facilities are located within 20 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area, the licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with the procedures specified in § 101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its operations.
( 2 ) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility in the 37,000-40,000 MHz band where the facilities are located within 16 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area, the licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with the procedures specified in § 101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its operations.
No. 10-10775.

#### Bowens *v.*Department of Justice et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-8629.

No. 10-9742.

No. 11-863.

No. 11-867.

No. 11-918.

No. 11-927.

No. 11-939.

No. 11-5141.

No. 11-7148.

#### Smith *v.*Colson, Warden, Cook *v.*Arizona, Smith *v.*Friedman et al., Holkesvig *v.*Moore, Siwula v. Town of Hornellsville, New York, et al., Gargano *v.*Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Wanken *v.*Wanken et al., Rosa *v.*United States, Otto et ux. *v.*Hillsborough County, Florida, *1006Gray *v.*Valdez, Warden, et al., Flores *v.*California, Haynes *v.*Texas, In re Square, Akine *v.*Florida, Southward *v.*Warren, Warden, Watson *v.*Kelley Fleet Services, LLC, Gonzalez *v.*Berghuis, Warden, Merritt *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Dixon *v.*Mississippi, Gordon *v.*Florida et al., Velleff *v.*United States, Ofor *v.*U. S. Bank, N. A., et al., Rutledge *v.*Lassen County, California, et al., Williams *v.*Georgia et al., Blankenship *v.*Allen, Judge, County Court of Florida, Escambia County, Johnson *v.*United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Bennett *v.*United States, Obi *v.*Virginia, Castleberry v. Ace American Insurance/ESIS, Birdette *v.*DAL Global Services, LLC, Baez *v.*Hunt et al., McGuire *v.*United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Moore *v.*United States, McPherson *v.*Texas, Akine *v.*Florida, Jones *v.*Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Griffin *v.*United States,

*1005
      *ante,*p. 901;

*ante,*p. 904;

565 U. S. 1260;

565 U. S. 1260;

*ante,*p. 906;

*ante,*p. 921;

*ante,*p. 922;

565 U. S. 1236;

565 U. S. 1236;

*1006No. 11-7158.

No. 11-7388.

No. 11-7392.

No. 11-7483.

No. 11-7692.

No. 11-7754.

No. 11-7853.

No. 11-7901.

No. 11-8004.

No. 11-8137.

No. 11-8139.

No. 11-8167.

No. 11-8183.

No. 11-8196.

No. 11-8205.

No. 11-8214.

No. 11-8246.

No. 11-8280.

No. 11-8307.

No. 11-8351.

No. 11-8405.

No. 11-8407.

No. 11-8434.

No. 11-8573.

No. 11-8591.

No. 11-8721.

No. 11-8797.

No. 11-8811.

565 U. S. 1124;

565 U. S. 1164;

565 U. S. 1164;

565 U. S. 1109;

565 U. S. 1208;

565 U. S. 1209;

565 U. S. 1212;

565 U. S. 1213;

565 U. S. 1216;

565 U. S. 1248;

565 U. S. 1248;

565 U. S. 1221;

565 U. S. 1264;

565 U. S. 1264;

565 U. S. 1264;

565 U. S. 1265;

565 U. S. 1265;

565 U. S. 1223;

565 U. S. 1266;

565 U. S. 1268;

565 U. S. 1250;

*ante,*p. 909;

565 U. S. 1268;

565 U. S. 1241;

565 U. S. 1270;

*ante,*p. 927;

*ante,*p. 927; and

565 U. S. 1272. Petitions for rehearing denied.
# RECENT RESEARCH ACTIVITY FROM THE CIC 

/ Published Feb. 26, 2018

 On 5 October, Dr. Michael Donohoe, CIC Professor, and Dr. Anthony Rodi and Mr. Gary Jamchenko, from the University of Pittsburgh, presented their co-written paper entitled “The New Learner: The Influence of Shifting Forces Impacting Higher Education,” to the 57th Annual International Association for Computer Information Systems (IACIS) International Conference in Philadelphia, PA.

 On 1 October, Dr. Jim Chen, CIC Professor, published his article “A New Dynamic Cyber Defense Framework” in the International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, Volume 7, Issue 4, pages 14-22.

 On 1 October, Dr. John Hurley, CIC Professor, published his article “Quantifying Decision Making in the Critical Infrastructure via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)” in the International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, Volume 7, Issue 4, pages 23-34.

 On 3 October, Mr. John O’Brien, CIC Professor, published, “Thinking Strategically in the Cyber Domain” in the PA Times Online, American Society for Public Administration (ASPA).