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

**Certifications**

I, GregRoth, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of TeamHealth Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto 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 allmaterial 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 andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent 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 function): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 11, 2010
No. 11-9132.

#### Ozuna-Cabrera *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5471.

#### Aparicio *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
DISA Director Hawkins Visits NDU and iCollege
 By Patricia Coopersmith
  On Friday, November 07, 2014, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Director, Lt Gen Ronnie D. Hawkins, Jr., USAF, and Nathan Maenle, Directorof Manpower, Personnel, and Security, DISA, visited National DefenseUniversity to discuss the ongoing DISA Executive Leader Education Programthat Lt Gen Hawkins sponsors at the NDU iCollege.  Interim NDU President,Ambassador Wanda Nesbitt, and the iCollege Chancellor, Jan Hamby, RADM(Ret.), USN, co-hosted the visit.  Lt Gen Hawkins initiated the GS-15Program in mid-2012 to provide civilian DISA leaders with professionaldevelopment opportunities and training that are analogous with theexperiences and training of military O-6s, many of whom have attended theirrespective military service's command and staff schools and war colleges.The mandatory, 24-month program, which includes six (6) iCollege courses, isalso intended to broaden the perspectives of participants and prepare themfor increased leadership responsibilities and to make contributions to DISAbeyond the scope of their current program areas.  Lt Gen Hawkins regularlyvisits the iCollege to speak with DISA students in the program and tocollaborate with NDU leadership. DISA visit to iCollegeAmb Nesbitt and LtGen HawkinsNathan Maenle, Wanda Nesbitt, LtGen Hawkins, Jan HambyAmb Nesbitt and Lt Gen Hawkins
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 24463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09842]

[[Page 24463]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8291]

In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of the Abu Sayyaf 
Group (ASG) (and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization 
Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant 
to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in consultation with 
the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that 
the circumstances that were the basis for the 2008 designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have 
not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the 
designation and that the national security of the United States does 
not warrant a revocation of the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 17, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-09842 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
§ 54.1610 Expiration of Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. ( a ) Prior to the conclusion of the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, the Administrator will notify participating providers of the projected final service month for which participating providers will be eligible to receive reimbursement for valid reimbursement claims submitted pursuant to 47 CFR 54.1608. In that final month when valid reimbursement claims exceed remaining funds, the amount disbursed for both service and connected device claims to participating providers will be reduced on a pro-rata basis but will be no less than 50% of the total support amount for timely filed claims for service and connected devices provided to households.
( b ) Concurrent with release of the notice by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, no new households shall be enrolled in the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program.
( c ) No later than 15 days after the Administrator provides notice pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, participating providers shall give notice to subscribers receiving the Emergency Broadband Benefit of the last date or service month that the full benefit will apply to the household's bill, the last date or service month that the partial, final-month benefit will apply to their bill, and the expected rate of the broadband service once the benefit expires.
( d ) At least 30 days before the end of the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, as indicated in the notice sent by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, participating providers must notify households about the upcoming end to the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program and clearly state that the household will be subject to the participating provider's generally applicable terms and conditions at the conclusion of the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program if the household elects to continue receiving broadband service from the participating provider.
#### § 61.191 Carrier to file supplement when notified of suspension.

If an issuing carrier is notified by the Commission that its tariff publication has been suspended, the carrier must file, within five business days from the release date of the suspension order, a consecutively numbered supplement without an effective date, which specifies the schedules which have been suspended.

[76 FR 43217, July 20, 2011]
#### § 68.6 Telephones with volume control.

As of January 1, 2000, all telephones, including cordless telephones, as defined in § 15.3(j) of this chapter, manufactured in the United States (other than for export) or imported for use in the United States, must have volume control in accordance with § 68.317. Secure telephones, as defined by § 68.3 are exempt from this section, as are telephones used with public mobile services or private radio services.

[62 FR 43484, Aug. 14, 1997]
TexaS &uri-rf(Mm\fla| APf*ate O^W^

T.b.Q-J.fr J%kk73 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

GUr*a w^f- r«ciU+y DEC io2015li "*Wvr

^HW/a^ Abe,Acosta,C^

£our+ ^ frimind Appeal* ^.^IiII^M^^tof^r^

Trial <bur+ Cao^ /Jo. a#U-cA-££a% c-c n 2„,g

Abel Acosta, Clerk

-for biscrd-bnary Review* wi+h -tt\\s C^orV Wbac^WS^I^. x-^n

3 laymaA +o 4he_ lawj Aor a/vi x. v/ersed in ^\e^\m). x~ dof\o-V K<\©xJ WsvJ-fe

re&earcii -Ih^lsw books' +o a>AS-toue+ a Pro-^ Pe&fcrt foe ^weSrirary Re*//*u/%- ba-V x-Viav^ oo/Yvple-kJ i+. X- cwtvpUW "^*0ftb^^34C?eAr\\\on'

on b^c^>iWl3^J5 bu^/^Cj 4^e5&arza vJ^+ famU-ty \2> preSeri-y on

\oCK-bavuA/ grrA-mS>J* since hio\lQPnber £^,A0l^ x am n&Vba^ alWd

4o purchase <3ny Wr^pond^/k^ ^upplt^Mrh &> ^(^T~€4l\JE-Lofe3%r cPo^rA&^ ^ro(Y\ 4^£ Qdtofliissary5-k> mail-oa-f (Ww'cPro-2>^ P^ViafV^-to

-this (Wk xhai/^ 3fn+- ceaiJM&fd WVjal-SuAfU^ a«\A yp"4o -r^e_ tffaw^ibr^personneJ-84J?Oft^. br\ RxfttocO, ba+ ^ 4t> are. ra&tfi^

be&mher£52£i?, 'd«^-lin£-.X-tei/£ also SuUrHad aM fcV>A 4

law-l/brary jgfiyjng^^^AtoeS To Thi~ (W&93 krnse o£ 4e fecltd*

W++* aJz) Avail ApparatfU/, &arz3 vJ^f faeUiiy sVa&a/d Viankn

i£-
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.88 Predesignation pleading procedure.

In cases where an investigation is being conducted by the Commission in connection with the operation of a broadcast station or a pending application for renewal of a broadcast license, the licensee may file a written statement to the Commission setting forth its views regarding the matters under investigation; the staff, in its discretion, may in writing, advise such licensee of the general nature of the investigation, and advise the licensee of its opportunity to submit such a statement to the staff. Any filing by the licensee will be forwarded to the Commission in conjunction with any staff memorandum recommending that the Commission take action as a result of the invesigation. Nothing in this rule shall supersede the application of our *ex parte* rules to situations described in § 1.1203 of these rules.

(Secs. 4, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1082, 1083; (47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307))

[45 FR 65597, Oct. 3, 1980]
No. 11-680.

#### Nielson *v.*Ketchum et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"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":"20-1327: KCG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"M1oeOHEnFg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-20-1327-kcg-technologies-llc-v-carmax-auto-superstores-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-1327-rule_36_judgment-10-19-2020_1671359\/\">20-1327: KCG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-20-1327-kcg-technologies-llc-v-carmax-auto-superstores-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-1327-rule_36_judgment-10-19-2020_1671359\/embed\/#?secret=M1oeOHEnFg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1327: KCG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"M1oeOHEnFg\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: KCG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1327 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of
Electronic  Game Card,  Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report") for electronic  Game Card,  Inc.,  (the  "Company"),  the  undersigned
hereby certifies that :

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 : November 16, 2006                   By:  /s/ Lee Cole
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Lee Cole
                                           Acting President and Acting Chief
                                           Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-07377) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plans, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73000) pertaining to the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73002)        pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group, Inc., in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-152706) pertaining to the SPAR Group, Inc. 2008 Stock Compensation Plan and with Respect to the December 31, 2008 consolidated financial statements of SPAR Group, Inc included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2008 of our report dated February        6, 2009 with respect to the financial statements of Spar Alan Pazarlama Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi, as of December 31, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|   | /s/ Güreli Yeminli Mali Müşavirlik A.Ş. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Istanbul, Turkey

March 25, 2009

 

Ex-2
#### § 69.131 Universal service end user charges.

To the extent the company makes contributions to the Universal Service Support Mechanisms pursuant to §§ 54.706 and 54.709 of this chapter and the non-price cap local exchange carrier seeks to recover some or all of the amount of such contribution, the non-price cap local exchange carrier shall recover those contributions through a charge to end users other than Lifeline users. The charge to recover these contributions is not part of any other element established pursuant to part 69. Such a charge may be assessed on a per-line basis or as a percentage of interstate retail revenues, and at the option of the local exchange carrier it may be combined for billing purposes with other end user retail rate elements. A non-price cap local exchange carrier opting to assess the Universal Service end-user rate element on a per-line basis may apply that charge using the “equivalency” relationships established for the multi-line business PICC for Primary Rate ISDN service, as per § 69.153(d), and for Centrex lines, as per § 69.153(e).

[66 FR 59732, Nov. 30, 2001]
Course Withdrawal Form — Instructions

The Course Withdrawal Form is to be used by students who seek to withdraw from a course during the course withdrawal 

period of a term. The form must have the signature of the student’s academic advisor in order to be processed. 

Students can use the Course Withdrawal Form on or after the Course Start Date (CSD) but before 25 percent of the course 

is completed. Note: Capstone withdrawal period is on or after the Course Start Date until the Monday of the 9th week.

This form cannot be used to withdraw from a course after 25 percent of the course is completed. 

Students must obtain the signature of the course instructor as well as their academic advisor, and turn the completed 

form into the CIC Office of Student Services (CICOSS@ndu.edu). 

Requirements for Continued Enrollment: Students enrolled at the NDU CIC must maintain satisfactory progress by 

completing at least one course every 12months and maintaining a 3.0 cumulativeG P A. 

First Name M.I. Last Name

Email Address 

Academic Term/Year 

Request to Withdraw from the Following Courses: 

Student Signature: Date:

Date:

Date:

CIC Office of Student Services Use Only 

Processed by: Date:

Course Withdrawal Form 

College of Information and Cyberspace 

 National Defense University 

Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 20319-5066 

Course Abbreviation Course Number Section 

Professor Signature

Advisor Signature

Course Withdrawal Form v20200924
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1256-20

JEFFERY THOMAS WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S AND APPELLANT’S

PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J.,

joined. 

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of obstruction or retaliation and sentenced to 10 years in

prison. In the bill of costs, the trial court assessed Appellant a $25 time payment fee. See

TEX.LOCAL GOV’TCODE § 133.103. On appeal, the Court of Appeals struck a portion of that
WHITE - 2

fee as being unconstitutional. White v. State, No. 12-20-00024-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS

9344 (Tex. App. – Tyler Nov. 30, 2020). 

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the court’s

constitutional analysis. We recently handed down our opinion in Dulin v. State, Nos. PD0856-19 & PD-0857-19, 2021 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 273 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021),

in which we held that the time payment fee was assessed prematurely because the pendency

of appeal suspends the obligation to pay court costs. As a result, there was no need to reach

the State’s constitutional arguments. 

We grant review on our own motion of the following ground:

Should the “Time Payment Fee” be struck as prematurely assessed?

Addressing that ground in light of Dulin, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals,

and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

The State’s petition is refused. Appellant’s petition is also refused.

DATE DELIVERED: May 12, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH