alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

     In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of
B.O.S Better Online Solutions Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the
State of Israel (the "COMPANY"), for the period ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"REPORT"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to such officer's knowledge, that:

1.   the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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
     as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


By:       /S/ Adiv Baruch               By:       /S/ Nehemia Kaufman
          ---------------                         -------------------
            Adiv Baruch                              Nehemia Kaufman
President and Chief Executive Officer           Chief Financial Officer


Date:  February 28, 2005




                                        7
#### § 2534.10 National service fellowships.

The Corporation may award national service fellowships on a competitive basis.

[69 FR 6181, Feb. 10, 2004. Redesignated at 75 FR 54789, Sept. 9, 2010]
#### § 95.619 Use of ADP systems.

ADP systems designed, developed, or installed with FFP shall be used for a period of time specified in the advance planning document, unless the Department determines that a shorter period is justified.
RE: IAR response due today

7 7 _ CCrussiah@fec.gov, donna@okdemocrats.org, 7
Neil P. Reiff to: matt@mdlangley.com 05/19/2015 12:13 PM
Imorcomb@fec.gov"

~~~This message has been replied to.

Rosa, amendments to resolve the findings are being filed today. With respect to time
sheets, the party has implemented procedures to ensure that time sheets are
maintained for any employee who is paid in whole, or in part with non-federal funds.
We do not have any written response to any other aspects of the Interim Audit Report.

Neil P. Reiff

Sandler, Reiff, Lamb, Rosenstein & Birkenstock, P.C.
1025 Vermont Ave, NW.

Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20005

w. (202) 479 - 1111
f. (202) 479 - 1115

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or any employee
or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by email. Thank you for your cooperation.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Section 302 Certification





I, Arnold Klann, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, 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 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)) for the Registrant and have:





a) Designed such 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 known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and





b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 occurred during 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 control over financial reporting.





5. The Registrant's other certifying officer 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):





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 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 the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Dated:   March 29, 2010

/s/ Arnold KlannArnold KlannChief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 1 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 2 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 3 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 4 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 5 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 6 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 7 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 8 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 9 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 10 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 11 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 12 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 13 of 14
Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 14 of 14
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-568V

Filed: March 18, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

BEVERLY RAND, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Guillain-Barre Syndrome

v. * (“GBS”); Influenza (“Flu”)

* Vaccine

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Amy Kokot, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On April 26, 2017, Beverly Rand (“Ms. Rand or “petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2 Petitioner alleges that 

she developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination

on or about September 29, 2015. Stipulation, filed Mar. 18, 2019, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies 

that the aforementioned immunization caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On March 18, 2019, the parties 

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

 

 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-

347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision 

will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s 

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party 

has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is 

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes 

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

A lump sum of $60,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Beverly 

Rand. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available 

under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance 

with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

 Mindy Michaels Roth

 Special Master

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
# Senate Floor Activity - Tuesday, February 18, 2014

**

----

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
§ 79.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the date of mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every such motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Such motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to such motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the authority head in accordance with § 79.39.
( g ) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision, that decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the authority head in accordance with § 79.39.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAVETH OUNG,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-12676

Honorable Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC # 16)

Plaintiff Saveth Oung filed a case seeking judicial review of Defendant

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. The Court assigned all pretrial

matters to Magistrate Judge Majzoub. This matter was stayed under Administrative Order

15-AO-045. On October 14, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s former counsel to, among

other things, inform her she needed to obtain new counsel within 60 days or she would

be considered as proceeding pro se. On March 8, 2016, the stay was lifted. Plaintiff

failed to indicate she retained new counsel; therefore, Plaintiff was deemed pro se. (Doc.

# 15). Magistrate Judge Majzoub ordered Plaintiff to file new summary judgment motion

by April 11, 2016, otherwise the Court may sua sponte dismiss the action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute . (Doc. # 15). Plaintiff failed to file

a summary judgement motion by the deadline. On April 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge

2:14-cv-12676-DPH-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1021
Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Court dismiss the

action for failure to prosecute. Id. 

Once a report and recommendation has been issued, a party has fourteen days to

file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations.

28 U.S.C. § 636. A district court is not required to review any portion of a report and

recommendation to which no objection was made. Hickey-Niezgoda v. Wells Fargo Home

Mortgage, No. 11-10538, 2012 WL 1079573, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2012) citing

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Neither party filed any written objections, and the time period for filing objections

has expired. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record, the Court

agrees with Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s recommendations. Plaintiff was warned that her

action could be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), yet she did not take any action. See

also E.D. Mich. LR 41.2 (“[W]hen it appears that . . . the parties have taken no action for

a reasonable time, the Court may, on its own motion after reasonable notice . . . enter an

order dismissing . . . the case unless good cause is shown.”). 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 16). Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: May 31, 2016

2

2:14-cv-12676-DPH-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on May 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:14-cv-12676-DPH-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1023
#### Minnie L. Greason, Respondent, v. Charles M. Holcomb et al., Appellants. Harriet E. Whelpley, Respondent

*Greason*v. *Holcomb,*131 App. Div. 868, affirmed.

(Argued November 9, 1909;

decided November 23, 1909.)

.Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 23, 1909, which affirmed an order of the Kings County Court overruling excejitions to and confirming the report of a referee in surplus money proceedings.

*William E. Warland*for appellants.

*John McCormick*for defendant, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Werner,Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
§ 11.1003 General requirements. ( a ) The Coast Guard recognizes certificates only from countries that the United States has assured itself comply with requirements of the STCW Convention and STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102 of this part).
( b ) The Coast Guard will publish a list of countries whose certificates it will recognize.
( c ) The Coast Guard will issue a “Certificate attesting recognition” to an applicant after ensuring the validity and authenticity of the credential (certificate of competency) issued by his or her country of origin.
( d ) No application from a non-US citizen for a “Certificate attesting recognition” issued pursuant to this subpart will be accepted unless the applicant's employer satisfies the requirements of § 11.1005 of this subpart.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KENNETH L. WILSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 239 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Whitehead *v.*The State.

Argued October 15,

Decided November 7, 1906.

Indictment for burglary. Before Judge Little. Muscogee superior court. July 16, 1906.

*D. L. Parmer,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. P. Gilbert, solicitor-general,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the court in admitting evidence of certain inculpatory statements made by the defendant, over objection on the ground that they were not in rebuttal. The reopening of a case for additional evidence is largely a matter of discretion with the presiding judge.

2. The evidence warranted the verdict of guilty, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 701.12 Staff Director.

A Staff Director for the Commission is appointed by the President with the concurrence of a majority of the Commissioners. The Staff Director is the administrative head of the agency.
§ 681.17 What rights are there to review documents? ( a ) Once the ALJ issues a hearing notice pursuant to § 681.11(b), and upon written request to the reviewing official, the defendant may: ( 1 ) Review any relevant and material documents, transcripts, records, and other materials that relate to the allegations set out in the complaint and upon which the findings and conclusions of the investigating official are based, unless such documents are subject to a privilege under Federal law. Upon payment of fees for duplication, the defendant may obtain copies of such documents; and
( 2 ) Obtain a copy of all exculpatory information in the possession of the reviewing official or investigating official relating to the allegations in the complaint, even if it is contained in a document that would otherwise be privileged. If the document would otherwise be privileged, only that portion containing exculpatory information must be disclosed.
( b ) The notice sent to the Attorney General from the reviewing official as described in § 681.5(a) is not discoverable under any circumstances.
( c ) If the reviewing official does not respond to the defendant's request within 20 days, the defendant may file a motion to compel disclosure of the documents with the ALJ subject to the provisions of this section. Such a motion may only be filed with the ALJ following the filing of an answer pursuant to § 681.9.
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 107.219 Permit to proceed to another port for repairs. ( a ) If a unit fails to meet the requirements in § 107.231, and the Coast Guard withholds reissuance of a Certificate of Inspection, or suspends an unexpired Certificate of Inspection, as described in § 107.279, a Permit to Proceed to Another Port for Repairs (Form CG-948) is issued by the Coast Guard if— ( 1 ) The owner, master, person in charge, or agent makes a written request for a permit to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, that includes— ( i ) The reason the permit is requested;
( ii ) The port in which the repairs are to be made; and
( iii ) The period of time for the voyage;
( 2 ) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection finds that the unit is seaworthy for the voyage.
( b ) A Permit to Proceed to Another Port for Repairs states the conditions under which it was issued and is in force for the period of the voyage to the port in which the repairs are to be made.
# Senate Floor Activity - Tuesday, January 14, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Tuesday, January 14)

H.R. 3527

S. 1434

S. 1845

 8

 10

 S.Amdt. 2631

 9

 S.Amdt. 2632

 S.Amdt. 2633

 S.Amdt. 2634

 S.Amdt. 2635

S. 1846

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
#### Thomas P. Salter and John R. Livermore, *Appellants, v.*John H. Kimball, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.