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

CERTIFICATIONS



CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, John H. Brown, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB, as amended, of Mega
Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 officers 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 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 date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and



c) presented in this annual report our 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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 officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether 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.



By:

/s/    JOHN H. BROWNJohn H. Brown Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer Principal Executive Officer




Date: August 13, 2003
|
|
|







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM









We consent to the incorporation by reference,
in the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-218831), of CleanSpark, Inc., of our report dated January 15, 2018 on our audit
of the financial statements of CleanSpark, Inc. as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. Our report
contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

















/s/AMC
Auditing



AMC Auditing

Las Vegas, Nevada

April 4, 2018
**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 Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350),each of the undersigned officers of GSI Commerce, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify withrespect to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2007 (the“Report”) that to the best of his knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        March 13, 2008 By:  /s/ Michael G. Rubin    Michael G. Rubin    Chief Executive Officer      March 13, 2008 By:  /s/ Michael R. Conn    Michael R. Conn    Chief Financial Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
 **
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, June 16, 1995 (81), Para 81.19 Time Limitation of Referred Bill]
[Page 1012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.81.19  time limitation of referred bill

  Pursuant clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the 
Speaker:

       H.R. 1062. Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended 
     for a period ending not later than June 22, 1995.
```
#### The Rensselaer and Saratoga Railroad Company, *Plaintiff, v.*The President, etc., of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, *Defendant*.

J ndgment ordered for plaintiff on case submitted. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
#### Chase *v.*Baker.

An action of debt for a penalty for catching fish in the plaintiff’s pond, in violation of G-. L., c. 179, *s.*1, cannot be maintained by one who was not owner or lessee of all the land under or around and adjoining the pond.

Debt, for a penalty for catching fish in the plaintiff’s pond, in violation of G. L., *a.*179, *s.*1.

Flanders, for the plaintiff.

Shirley, for the defendant.

Doe, C. J.

The plaintiff was not owner or lessee of all the land under or around and adjoining the pond, and cannot maintain this action.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending March 26, 2011

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|COMERICA BANK     | * 18C* Branch  | Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas, to merge with Sterling Bank, Houston, Texas; and to establish the 61 offices of Sterling Bank, Houston, Texas, as branches of Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas.           | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|VB TEXAS, INC.    | * 3A3          | VB Texas, Inc., Houston, Texas, to acquire 100 percent of Founders Bank, SSB, Sugar Land, Texas, by merging Vista Bank Texas, Houston, Texas, its wholly owned subsidiary, with Founders Bank, SSB. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available 
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not available 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                         | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|UNITED BK OF EL PASO DEL NORTE, EL PASO, TEXAS | 2942823 | 07/26/2010 | 03/07/2011     | S         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1787

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 12, 1995

Received

FEBRUARY 27 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 23), 1996

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

repeal the saccharin notice requirement.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1787 RFS

1 SECTION 1. NOTICE REQUIREMENT REPEAL.

2 Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

3 Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by striking paragraph

4 (p).

Passed the House of Representatives December 12,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending February 4, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, April 5, 1995 (56), Para 56.18 Submission of Conference Report--H.R. 889]
[Page 577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.56.18  submission of conference report--h.r. 889

  Mr. LIVINGSTON submitted a conference report (Rept. No. 104-101) on 
the bill (H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental appropriations and 
rescissions to preserve and enhance the military readiness of the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
for other purposes; together with a statement thereon, for printing in 
the Record under the rule.
```
§ 90.05-1 Vessels subject to requirements of this subchapter. ( a ) This subchapter is applicable to all U.S.-flag vessels indicated in Column 4 of Table 2.01-7(A) and to all such foreign-flag vessels which carry 12 or fewer passengers from any port in the United States to the extent prescribed by law, except as follows: ( 1 ) Any vessel of a foreign nation signatory to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and which has on board a current, valid safety equipment certificate.
( 2 ) Any vessel operating exclusively on inland waters which are not navigable waters of the United States.
( 3 ) Any vessel while laid up and dismantled and out of commission.
( 4 ) With the exception of vessels of the U.S. Maritime Administration, any vessel with title vested in the United States and which is used for public purposes.
( b ) Notwithstanding the exception previously noted in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, foreign vessels of novel design or construction or whose operation involves potential unusual risks shall be subject to inspection to the extent necessary to safeguard life and property in United States ports, as further provided by § 2.01-13 of subchapter A (Procedures Applicable to the Public) of this chapter.
( c ) Notwithstanding the exception noted in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each foreign vessel shall report marine casualties occurring while the vessel is in the navigable waters of the United States as required by subpart 97.07.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16970, Dec. 30, 1965] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting § 90.05-1, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending December 13, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending January 16, 2010

|Filer                                | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------------ | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF OHIO COUNTY, INC.            | Member         | Bank of Ohio County, Dundee, Kentucky, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.                                                                                                     | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                           | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                    | Not applicable
|FARMERS BANK & CAPITAL TRUST COMPANY | * 18C* Branch  | Farmers Bank & Capital Trust Company, Frankfort, Kentucky, to merge with Lawrenceburg Bank & Trust Company, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, and to retain the acquired facilities as branch offices. | Newspaper:02/17/2010Federal Register:Not applicable    
|Newspaper:                           | 02/17/2010    
|Federal Register:                    | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                  | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|CASS COMMERCIAL BK, BRIDGETON, MISSOURI | 177751 | 09/08/2009 | 12/29/2009     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|MIDLAND ST BK, EFFINGHAM, ILLINOIS      | 773247 | 08/17/2009 | 12/24/2009     | S         | Int Sm Bank

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3911

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Randy L. Woods, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 5, 2001 Filed: October 10, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Randy L. Woods pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Overruling his drug-quantity objection, the district court 1 sentenced Woods to 92 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release. Woods renews his drug-quantity argument on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining Woods’s drug quantity. See United States v. Milton , 153 F.3d 891, 898 (8th Cir. 1998)-2- (standard of review), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1165 (1999). The court properly relied on expert evidence, see United States v. Hunt , 171 F.3d 1192, 1196 (8th Cir. 1999), and properly estimated the capacity of Woods’s laboratory based on an amount of precursor chemicals, see United States v. Anderson , 236 F.3d 427, 429 n.5 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). The court was entitled to believe the defense expert’s testimony that Woods’s laboratory could have theoretically produced the drug quantity urged by the government, while disbelieving the expert’s testimony about the unlikelihood that a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory would have been able to do so. See United States v. Moore , 212 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2000). We decline to consider Woods’s argument that the purity of a small quantity of methamphetamine seized from the laboratory should be used to estimate the laboratory’s capacity because he presents it for the first time on appeal. SeeTarsney v. O’Keefe , 225 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1364 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Thomas, Appellant, *v.*Huffman, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *Thomas v. Huffman*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 266.]

(No. 98-1465

Submitted December 2, 1998

Decided December 30, 1998.)

*James T. Thomas III, pro se.*

*267
      *Joseph T. Deters,*Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Philip R. Cummings,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Thomas asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.

Thomas’s contention lacks merit because his claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See, *e.g., Gaskins v. Shiplevy*(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 150, 656 N.E.2d 1282, 1283 (double jeopardy); *Cornell v. Schotten*(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, 1112 (ineffective assistance of counsel); *In re Copley*(1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 35, 58 O.O.2d 98, 278 N.E.2d 358 (equal protection); *Mattox v. Sacks*(1961), 172 Ohio St. 385, 16 O.O.2d 243, 176 N.E.2d 221 (improper remarks made' by prosecuting attorney). Thomas had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or postconviction relief to raise his claimed errors. See *State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers*(1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1723 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1723

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor 
Relations Board to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute which occurs 
  on Johnston Atoll, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1995

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
       to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor 
Relations Board to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute which occurs 
  on Johnston Atoll, an unincorporated territory of the United States.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION. 1. JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

    Paragraph (1) of section 14(c) of the National Labor Relations Act 
(29 U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the period after ``1959''; and
            (2) by inserting the following:
``: Provided further, That the Board shall not decline to assert 
jurisdiction over a labor dispute which occurs on Johnston Atoll, an 
unicorporated territory of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1450

To eliminate certain activities from the functions performed by the National

Weather Service, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 6, 1995

Mr. ROEMER (for himself, Mr. KLUG, and Mr. CHRYSLER) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To eliminate certain activities from the functions performed

by the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIZED WEATHER SERVICES.

4 The National Weather Service shall not provide any

5 weather services specifically for the aviation, marine, or

6 agricultural communities, other than as a necessary part

7 of the provision of weather warnings and forecasts for the

8 protection of the lives and property of the general public.
2

•HR 1450 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIVATE SECTOR COMPETITION.

2 The National Weather Service shall take all appro3 priate steps to avoid engaging in, or supporting the efforts

4 of another to engage in, competition with the private sec5 tor with respect to the provision of weather services other

6 than weather warnings and forecasts for the protection of

7 the lives and property of the general public.

Æ