alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.0**

**Rule 13A-14(A) Certification**

I, Kathleen Scalzo, President and Treasurer, certify that:				1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Scout Exploration, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.			Date: December 21, 2006			By: __/s/ Kathleen Scalzo________________________			Name:  Kathleen Scalzo			Title: President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer

----
ISSUE DATE: 06/05/09 

PROGRAM INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. P09-10 

FROM: NEAL H. MERRIFIELD

Acting Administrator for Metal and Nonmetal 

 Mine Safety and Health 

LINDA F. ZEILER

Acting Director of Technical Support 

SUBJECT: Re-Issue of P00-11 - Nondestructive Testing of Wire Rope –

Electromagnetic Testing 

Scope

This information bulletin applies to metal and nonmetal mine operators and 

independent contractors. 

Purpose

This bulletin alerts the mining industry of the advisability of conducting 

electromagnetic testing of wire ropes to determine if unsafe conditions are developing. 

Information

Sections 56/57.19023(c) of 30 CFR require that every 6 months nondestructive tests be 

conducted of the active length of each wire rope in service or diameter measurements 

be made at specified locations. These tests and measurements are intended to identify 

rope wear and other deterioration so that a wire rope is removed from service before it 

becomes hazardous to use. 

Although the standard does not define nondestructive testing, these tests usually 

involve a type of electromagnetic testing to detect broken wires or loss of cross-sectional 

area. Electromagnetic testing can detect internal defects such as corrosion or broken 

wires, which other methods cannot reliably detect. Also, electromagnetic tests can be 

used to assess the condition of the entire length of a wire rope. Other measurement 
2

techniques can only be used to assess the condition of selected points along the rope. 

For these reasons, although the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 

standards do not require it, electromagnetic testing of wire rope may be advisable in 

certain situations to provide timely detection of rope deterioration and allow the rope to 

be retired before it becomes unsafe. 

Background

A hoist rope used in the service shaft of an underground limestone mine recently failed. 

 After the failure, an examination of a section of the rope revealed severe pitting and 

corrosion in many locations on the inner sections of the wire rope. Prior to the failure, a 

contractor had measured the rope at various locations in accordance with the 

requirements of 56/57.19023, and had also conducted destructive pull tests on cutoff 

sections of the rope every 6 months. Nonetheless, the measurements and testing had 

failed to detect the deterioration of the rope. 

Internet Availability

This PIB may be viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA home page at 

http://www.msha.gov and choosing "Compliance Info" and "Program Information 

Bulletins." 

Authority

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977; 30 CFR 56/57.19023 and .19024. 

Issuing Office and Contact Persons

Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health 

Safety and Health Division 

William W. Wilson, (202) 693-9643 

E-mail: wilson.william@dol.gov 

Approval and Certification Center 

Michael P. Snyder, (304) 547-2047 

E-mail: snyder.michael@dol.gov 

Distribution

MSHA Program Policy Manual Holders 

Metal and Nonmetal Mine Operators 

Independent Contractors 

Special Interest Groups
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


I, Sam Heidari, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quantenna Communications, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quantenna Communications, Inc.





Date: March 1, 2017By:/s/ Sam HeidariName:Sam HeidariTitle:Chief Executive Officer








I, Sean Sobers, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Box, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quantenna Communications, Inc.








Date: March 1, 2017By:/s/ Sean SobersName:Sean SobersTitle:Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50338

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRAIG CURRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-96-CR-169-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

January 5, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Craig Curry appeals from his conviction and sentence for

making a false statement to a financial institution and for

interstate transportation of stolen money. He argues solely that

the district court erred by failing to reduce his offense level

for acceptance of responsibility based on the fact that he

voluntarily paid full restitution prior to his adjudication of

guilt. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the

parties, and we hold that the district court did not clearly err
No. 97-50338

-2-

by refusing to award Curry a reduction in his offense level based

on acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Watson,

988 F.2d 544, 551 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 81012          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 3          Edition Date: 08-JUN-91          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1991/29**Notice Listing-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
#### § 63.35 Dual compensation.

If a project staff member or consultant of one grantee is involved simultaneously in two or more projects supported by any funds either under this part or otherwise, he/she may not be compensated for more than 100 percent of his/her time from any funds during any part of the period of dual involvement.
§ 261.24 How will we determine a State's two-parent work rate? ( a ) ( 1 ) The two-parent participation rate for a fiscal year is the average of the State's two-parent participation rates for each month in the fiscal year.
( 2 ) The rate applies to two-parent families with two work-eligible individuals. However, if one of the parents is a work-eligible individual with a disability, we will not consider the family to be a two-parent family; i.e., we will not include such a family in either the numerator or denominator of the two-parent rate.
( b ) We determine a State's two-parent participation rate for the month as follows: ( 1 ) The number of two-parent TANF and SSP-MOE families in which both parents are work-eligible individuals and together they meet the requirements set forth in § 261.32 for the month (i.e., the numerator), divided by,
( 2 ) The number of two-parent TANF and SSP-MOE families in which both parents are work-eligible individuals during the month, minus the number of such two-parent families that are subject to a penalty for refusing to work in that month (the denominator). However, if a family with a work-eligible individual has been penalized for more than three months of the last 12 months, we will not exclude it from the participation rate calculation.
( 3 ) At State option, we will include in the participation rate calculation families with a work-eligible individual that have been penalized for refusing to work no more than three of the last 12 months.
( c ) For purposes of the calculation in paragraph (b) of this section, a two-parent family includes, at a minimum, all families with two natural or adoptive parents (of the same minor child) who are work-eligible individuals and living in the home, unless both are minors and neither is a head-of-household.
( d ) ( 1 ) If the family receives assistance for only part of a month, we will count it as a month of participation if a work-eligible individual in the family (or both work-eligible individuals, if they are both required to work) is engaged in work for the minimum average number of hours in each full week that the family receives assistance in that month.
( 2 ) If a State pays benefits retroactively (i.e., for the period between application and approval of benefits), it has the option to consider the family to be receiving assistance during the period of retroactivity.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50350

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FLOYD DAVID REED,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CR-19_

- - - - - - - - - -

December 6, 1996

Before KING, JOLLY, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Floyd Reed has appealed his sentence of 120 months

confinement for a bank robbery which he committed by using a

handgun. There is no merit to his contention that the upward

departure, based on a criminal history category of VI rather than

III, was excessive. See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803,

807-10 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969

(1995). Nor did the district court rely on an improper ground
No. 96-50350

- 2 -

for departure. Reed argues that the district court sentenced him

as a career offender based on a 1968 robbery conviction that was

too remote to count toward his criminal history score. Contrary

to Reed’s contention, the district court did not sentence him as

a career offender. If Reed had been a career offender, his base

offense level would have been 34 instead of 20, which would have

resulted in a guideline range of 262 to 327 months. Reed was

only sentenced to 120 months. Furthermore, the district court

did not plainly err by not stating on the record why a sentence

based on criminal history category IV or V was not appropriate.

See United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 662-64 (5th Cir.

1993)(en banc).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**IMPLANT
      SCIENCES CORPORATION**





**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 Implant Sciences Corporation (the
      "Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ending December
      31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the Report), I, Diane J. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/*Diane
                J. RyanDiane
                J. RyanChief
                Financial OfficerJune
                29, 2005




33
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:13 AM

To: Wayland, Robertj

Cc: Elman, Barry

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Legal Memo

Hi Bob,

Here are the additional comments on the legal memo:



### ‐ p. 2 – “In the case of a tribe that has one or more affected EGUs on its lands, the tribe would have the opportunity, but not the obligation, to establish a CO2 performance standard and a plan for its tribal lands.” EPA has responded that they believe there is no inconsistency with how EGUs on tribal lands would be addressed by this rulemaking (e.g., Tribes would have the option of developing a compliance plan), but note that some information has been left out of the Legal Memo. Suggest revising the text to provide the same information explained on pg. 316 of t he redline Preamble (e.g., that EPA plans to establish emissions limits for Indian Country in the future, as provided by the Tribal Authority Rule). Without this additional text/explanation, the Legal Memo may mislead Tribes as to the implications for their affected EGUs.



### ‐ p. 2, fn 8: “The EPA is aware of at least three affected sources located in Indian Country located in Indian Country, two on [Navajo] lands – the Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Generating Station – and one on [Ute] lands – the Bonanza Generating Station. All three are coal-fired EGUs.” This needs to be updated to reflect changes in the Preamble regarding identification of a fourth EGU in Indian Country (see redline Preamble, pg. 69, footnote 34).



### ‐ The memo provides that section VI.B.4 explains “why the measures in these building blocks are a “system of emission reduction,” and then why they are the “best” system that is “adequately demonstrated.” The memo doesn’t really offer an explanation of what makes a particular activity or set of actions the “best” system of emissions reduction. It seems as if anything that is “adequately demonstrated” constitutes the “best.” Having set up the analysis as if there are two prongs to be met, it would be useful to provide more substance on what makes something the “best.”

Regards, Cortney
§ 630.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a(n) National Science Foundation award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the National Science Foundation awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless § 630.301 or the award document designates a central point for the receipt of the notices. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
#### Joseph F. Witmer, Appellant, *v.*City of Jamestown, Respondent

*Witmer*v. *City of Jamestown,*125 App. Div. 43, affirmed.

(Argued October 20, 1909;

decided November 9, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March' 6, 1908, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee and granting a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract for services.

*Arthur O. Wade*and *lincoln A. Groat*for appellant.

*Frank*IF. *Stevens*for respondent.

*554Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscook, JJ. Not voting: Edward T. Bartlett, J. Dissenting: Haight, J.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6393** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BENJAMIN C. THOMPKINS, JR., a/k/a Benjamin Thompkins, a/k/a Benjie , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00339

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : July 31, 2012 Decided: August 28, 2012

Before AGEE and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Benjamin C. Thompkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea

- Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are no t binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin C. Thompkins, Jr., appeals the district
court ’ s order granting the United States’ motion to dismiss and denying Thompkins’ various motions including his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1) motion for new tr ial, his motion for disclosure, and his motion to preserve evidence . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Thompkins , No. 3:08

- cr - 00339

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2012) . We grant leave to proceed in formal pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRME D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________

)

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER )

1411 K Street, NW, Suite 1400 )

Washington, DC 20005, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:18-cv-00053-TSC

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION )

999 E Street, NW )

Washington, DC 20463, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________)

NON-PARTY MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ADAV NOTI AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

IN THIS ACTION

GEO Correction Holdings, Inc. (“GEO”), appearing before this Court for the limited 

purpose of filing the present motion and participating in the proceedings related to this 

motion, moves this Court to disqualify Adav Noti as counsel for Plaintiff Campaign Legal 

Center.

Mr. Noti’s representation of Plaintiff creates an impermissible conflict of interest 

because Mr. Noti is a former, high-ranking employee of Defendant Federal Election 

Commission. Mr. Noti was an employee of Defendant Federal Election Commission’s 

Office of General Counsel at the time his current employer, Plaintiff Campaign Legal 

Center, filed the administrative complaint that is the subject of this litigation. The violation 

of law alleged by Mr. Noti in the present litigation began and/or occurred while Mr. Noti 

was an employee of Defendant. These circumstances present “a substantial possibility 

Case 1:18-cv-00053-TSC Document 11 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 2
of an unfair advantage to the current client because of counsel's prior representation of 

the opposing party.” Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

vacated on other grounds, 472 U.S. 424 (1985). Mr. Noti’s representation of Plaintiff in 

this matter threatens the “integrity of the judicial and administrative processes,” raises 

questions about “the safeguarding of confidential governmental information from future 

use against the government,” and creates “the appearance of impropriety which may 

affect the perceived integrity of the agency.” Kessenich v. Commodity Futures Trading 

Com., 684 F.2d 88, 95-97 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted).

As set forth more fully in the accompanying memorandum in support of this motion, 

GEO respectfully requests that this Court disqualify Mr. Noti as counsel for plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted,

_____/s/_Jason Torchinsky______

Jason Torchinsky (D.C. Bar No. 976033)

jtorchinsky@hvjlaw.com

J. Michael Bayes (D.C. Bar No. 501845)

jmbayes@hvjlaw.com

HOLTZMAN VOGEL JOSEFIAK PLLC

45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100

Warrenton, VA 20186

Tel: (540) 341-8808

Fax: (540) 341-8809

Counsel for GEO Correction Holdings, Inc.

DATED: January 25, 2018

Case 1:18-cv-00053-TSC Document 11 Filed 01/29/18 Page 2 of 2