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

**Exhibit 31**

**PROSPERO MINERALS CORP.   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Hubert Pinder, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Prospero Minerals Corp.;

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. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers 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 small business issuer and we 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 small business issuer, 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;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) presented in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controls 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. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls 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 function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; 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.

**PROSPERO MINERALS CORP.**

*By:/s/ Hubert Pinder*

Name: Hubert Pinder   Title : Chief Financial Officer   Dated: March 13th,2009

----
Before the Third Division,

June 4, 1962

No. 66826.

#### Mosaic Stone Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/9049, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                        4,552,403
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                   378,758
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              4,931,161
<PP&E>                       16,411,136
<DEPRECIATION>               11,287,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               10,388,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           606,162
<BONDS>                       2,374,762
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                    5,416,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 10,388,002
<SALES>                       3,733,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3,976,232
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,978,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                207,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              302,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,488,004
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             937,078
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                    937,078
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     45.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                     45.91




</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL LEE SMITH, No. 2:04-cv-0702-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On March 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Request for

Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s January 5, 2006, and

February 8, 2006, orders denying Motions to Compel Discovery. 

Local Rule 72-303(b) states, “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall

be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court

within ten court days . . . from the date of service of the

ruling on the parties.” Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration

of the Magistrate Judge’s January 5, 2006, and February 8, 2006,

orders is therefore untimely.

///

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 88 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s March 6,

2006, Request for Reconsideration is denied.

DATED: March 16, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 88 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
# • ADDENDUM NO.1

This addendum modifies the Grant Agreement between the U.S. Department ofTransportation (the Department), Kawerak, Inc. (Diomede's community representative), and Erickson Helicopters, Inc. (Erickson). under theAir Transportation toNoneligible Places program (Agreement), which was entered into by the Parties onJuly 17,2014. The following modifications areagreed toby the Parties and hereby made to the Agreement, pursuant to Section VI, paragraph (L) oftheAgreement: Re-desigoate Seetlon VI, paragraph (I)(b) as paragraph (I)(c), and; Insert Section VI, paragraph (I)(b) as follows:

b. Kawerak may terminate this agreement provided that itgives the Department. the Alaska Department ofTransportation and Public Facilities, and Erickson at least 30 days' notice before terminating the agreement.
Dated: 

# 4t!}nsf 

# If' ,2014 U.S. Department ofTransportation
BY:~4v~ 

# jJ
Susan L urland Assistant Secretary for 

# • Aviation and International Affairs
Dated: 

# Av" '";1-1 ,2014 Kawerak, Inc. By:~Q Melanie Bahnke President Kawerak.,Inc.
Dated: 

# iv~fc? ! ,2014 

### \ B'/ y,. ~T.RI uti Vice President, General Counsel Erickson Helicopters, Inc.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Create a Returned Item Adjustment for a Foreign Check Item

To create a returned item adjustment for Foreign Check Items, complete the following steps:

1. From the Deposit Processing tab, select Create Returned Item Adjustment>Foreign 

Check Item. The Step 1 of 2: Define Returned Item Adjustment Information page appears.

2. Enter the information to prepare the returned item adjustment and click Next. The Step 2 of 

2: Review Item Adjustment page appears as shown in Figure 1 below.

• Select the ALC (Agency Location Code), CAN/Acct Key (CA$HLINK II Account 

Number/Account Key) and RTN-DDA (Routing Transit Number- Demand 

Deposit Account) from their drop-down lists

• Enter the Date of Deposit, Voucher Date, and Foreign Currency Amount

• Select the Original Deposit Date and enter the Original #, optional

• Select the Country of Deposit

If the name of the country is not listed, select Other. The Currency Code and 

Exchange Rate will automatically populate based on the Country of Deposit selection

• Enter the Amount of Returned Item (USE)

• Select a Reason for Returned Item and OTC Endpoint

• Enter Adjustment Comments, required if the reason for the returned item is “other” 
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Figure 1. Step 1 of 2: Define Returned Item Adjustment Information

3. Verify the information is correct and click Submit. Click Edit to make changes to the 

information entered.

4. A Confirmation page appears stating that the returned item adjustment was created.

• Click Cancel to return to the OTCnet Home Page. No data is saved.

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Additional Buttons
POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

9/24/13

Chemical ID: P-13-0060 Reviewer: Flessner

The
Case: 14-2884 Document: 003112113540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2015 

BLD-005 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 14-2884 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

SRAMEK HYNSON, 

also known as SHY, 

also known as LEGEND, 

Appellant 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-05-cr-00576-002) 

District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4and1.0.P. 10.6 

October 2, 2015 

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges 

JUDGMENT 

This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted for possible dismissal 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary action pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 

27.4and1.0.P. 10.6 on October 2, 2015. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby 
Case: 14-2884 Document: 003112113540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2015 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of the District Court 

entered May 16, 2014, be and the same is hereby affirmed. All of the above in 

accordance with the opinion of this Court. 

DATED: October 6, 2015 

" . ;; : : x 

..... . ' . "' 

Cert[h~a~ -, y·~d issued in lieu 

"'..s- • C> ofa forit'aj ate~ October 28, 2015 1 vis .11(\') 

Teste: ~....._.;... 'Pf. V.LAClerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

ATTEST: 

sl Marcia M. Waldron 

Clerk
```
Dislocated Workers: A Look Back at the Redwood Employment Training
Programs (Briefing Report, 12/13/93, GAO/HRD-94-16BR).

The expansion of Redwood National Park in 1978 put many timber workers
in Northern California out of work.  As a result, the federal government
created programs to help alleviate the effects of the park expansion on
workers and their towns.  Now 15 years later, new environmental concerns
have again placed restrictions on the timber industry, and the President
has proposed new assistance programs for dislocated timber workers.  GAO
revisited the Redwood worker assistance programs and found that,
although they were quite extensive, few workers actually enrolled in
retraining programs. Many workers received wage replacement benefits or
severance payments--some received as much as $45,000--but this money was
not tied to retraining.  In addition, because Labor Department
regulations for retraining were delayed until 14 months after program
implementation, educational service providers were reluctant to develop
retraining programs, and officials lost contact with many of the
dislocated workers before they could be retrained.  Per capita income
dropped steeply in the two counties affected by the park expansion, and
housing values fluctuated. In one county, an influx of retirees helped
to stabilize property values and retail sales, while in the other county
construction of a state prison produced about 1,800 jobs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-16BR
     TITLE:  Dislocated Workers: A Look Back at the Redwood Employment 
             Training Programs
      DATE:  12/13/93
   SUBJECT:  Federal aid programs
             Education or training
             Human resources training
             Employment or training programs
             National parks
             Aid for training or employment
             Unemployment problem areas
             Unemployment compensation programs
             Training utilization
IDENTIFIER:  Humboldt County (CA)
             Del Norte County (CA)
             DOL Redwood Employee Protection Program
             Six Rivers National Forest (CA)
             Redwood National Park (CA)
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
No. 59552.

protests 267079-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bertrand Freres, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICIO R. MUNOZ, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1658 LKK PAN P

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01658-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. Petitioner is permitted 60 days to file a motion to stay this action and hold it in

abeyance while he exhausts his other claims. 

DATED: July 11, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/muno1658.801.hc

Case 2:04-cv-01658-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Page 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30218 Summary Calendar

WENDELL ARMANT and DR. CAROL THOMPSON-ARMANT Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus JOSEPH WEST, ET AL Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 2:04-cv-2336)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* 1 Reviewing the record de novo, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Armant’s suit for the following reasons:Page 2

1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine establishes that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments when the constitutional claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a challenged state court judgment. Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc ., 355 F.3d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 2003). Unsuccessful parties in a state court cannot reconstitute their cases as Section 1983 claims to sidestep this rule. Liedtke v. The State Bar of Texas , 18 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1994). 2. In their Section 1983 suit, the Armants hope a federal court will find that the appellees engaged in illegal conduct in their effort to enforce Judge Giarrusso’s judgment. However, it is impossible to reach this conclusion without first establishing that Judge Giarrusso’s judgment was deficient. That issue has already been addressed by the Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court. The bottom line is that these two issues are inextricably intertwined. Affirmed.
Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified 

Statements

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2022 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map 

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Federal 

Entity Reporting Requirements for the Financial Report of the United States Government. Each report 

crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the 

reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary 

information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information 

on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by 

Fiscal Service:

Section VI Page Number

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Balance Sheet (RBS) VI RBS - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Net Cost (RSNC) VI RSNC - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Operations and 

Changes in Net Position (RSOCNP)

VI RSOCNP - 1

Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1108-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed November

18, 2005, refraining from ordering service of process on the

wardens, chief medical officers and deputy wardens named in the

third amended complaint. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f),

a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file,

the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate

judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 49 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon

reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed

November 18, 2005, is affirmed. 

DATED: December 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 49 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 2
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





In connection with the quarterly report of Patient Portal Technologies, Inc. (the “Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 10, 2010





/s/ Kevin KellyKevin KellyChief Executive Officer
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 29-3 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 1

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 29 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

Are Further Changes Needed? 

• Two-capacity units that transition between low and 

high capacity differently 

- "On the fly" transition 

- Shut down for some finite interval when transitioning 

• Test method of non-ducted equipment 

• Others? 
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

New CD Defaults / NAECA Compliance 

• Recently initiated efforts to investigate assigning 

additional CD defaults based on equipment features 

- Examples: type of expansion device, wi or wlo TDR, capacity 

- Resource: ARI certification testing database 

- This rulemaking or in a separate, focused rulemaking 

• Will any of the proposed changes negatively 

impact a unit's ability to meet existing NAECA 

standards? 
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

Proposed Agenda 

• Public Hearing on the January 22, 2001 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for the DOE residential air 

conditioner and heat pump test procedure 

- General Statements 

- Proposed changes on testing & rating specific equipment 

- Proposed changes/additions that effect lab testing 

- Other Changes? 

- New defaults for CD 

- Any problems with maintaining NAECA compliance? 

• Public Workshop on other test procedure issues: 

TXV s _and mixed system rating methods 
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

Brief History 

• Draft revision completed June 1996: Distributed for 

• 

peer reVIew 

• DOE workshop held September 25, 1997 

• Draft test procedure on DOE web site: October 1998 

• Converted to "Plain Language": Summer 1999 

• Completes DOE internal review: Fall 2000 

• Proposed rulemaking published January 22, 2001 
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

Revision Objectives 

• Bring Up-to-Date (last revised March 1988) 

• Reduce "Gray Areas"; Be More 

Comprehensive 

• Stay with U.S. Customary (I-P) units 

• Goal: No revision to NAECA minimum 

standards 
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

Testing & Rating Specific Equipment 

• Non-defrost heat pumps: 3 options in NOPR 

• Heat Comfort Controllers: Any problems with the 

proposed algorithm? Do we need to cover twocapacity and variable-speed heat pumps? 

• Small-duct, high-velocity units: Proposal to test as 

coil-only units 

• Rating options for two-capacity heat pumps that 

can be configured to only use low capacity when 

cooling 
EE-RM-TP-97-440 COMMENT 08DD

Lab Testing Changes and Additions 

• Variable-speed, constant CFM blowers 

- Drop requirement for an 8% agreement with the certified SCFM? 

- Is the correction to minimum static burdensome? 

- Cyclic test uses the approximation of a step response in air flow 

• Proposal for addressing leakage in packaged units 

• Air flow limits when testing a two-capacity 

coil -only unit at low capacity 

• No lab-only refrigerant charging criteria; prevent 

manufacturer consultation on third party testing