alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (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;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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; and
  (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.
 Date 11/13/2009/s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
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

LEWIS JENKINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1656 FCD GGH P

vs.

STEVE CAMBRA, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this 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 March 6, 2006, 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. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01656-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 04/24/06 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 6, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED:April 24, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01656-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 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 This court does not have authority to revise the district court’s scheduling orders.

1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2344 LKK JFM

vs.

MICHAEL DAUGHERTY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS.

 /

On February 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. By agreement

of the parties, the motion was continued from March 2, 2006 to March 30, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.,

and the court approved the agreement by order filed February 27, 2006. The parties were to

continue their efforts to resolve the discovery disputes.

However, pursuant to the district court’s December 5, 2005 order, the discovery

motion cut off was extended to March 9, 2006. The district court’s prior scheduling order, filed 1

May 12, 2005, admonished the parties that the discovery deadline meant that discovery was to be

Case 2:04-cv-02344-LKK -JFM Document 90 Filed 03/27/06 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

conducted so as to be completed by the discovery deadline. (Id. at 4, emphasis in original.) The

district court further clarified that “the word ‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been

conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall

have been resolved by appropriate order if necesssary and, where discovery has been ordered, the

order has been complied with.” (Id. at 4.) 

Accordingly, the March 30, 2006 hearing is outside the scheduling order and will

be vacated from the court’s calendar. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as untimely.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The March 30, 2006 hearing is vacated; and

2. Plaintiff’s February 9, 2006 motion to compel is denied without prejudice.

DATED: March 24, 2006. 

/001; ford.ddl

Case 2:04-cv-02344-LKK -JFM Document 90 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2
San Luis Obispo County APCD 203-1 11/5/91

RULE 203. APPLICATIONS (Adopted 8/2/76; Revised 11/5/91)

A. Every application for an Authority to Construct, Pe rmit to Operate or Permit to Sell or Rent required under Rule 202 shall be filed in the manner and form prescribed by the Air Pollution Control Officer, and shall give all the i nformation necessary to enable the Air

Pollution Control Officer to make the determination required by Rule 204 hereof.

B. Applications for banking of emission reductions sha ll be filed in the manner and form prescribed by the Air Pollution Control Officer, an d shall give all the information necessary to enable the APCO to make the determinat ions required by Rule 211 hereof.
No. 65513.

#### Alfred H. Marzolf *v.*United States,

protest 291273-K (Seattle).

*444Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

May 21, 1947

No. 51738.

#### Protests 116860-K, etc., of Julius Kayser & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

April 3, 1946

No. 50985.

#### Protests 14196-K, etc., of Justis Tharaud, Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

KARUNA ANAND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1575 LKK GGH 

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENTAL

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

______________________________________/

This case was referred to the Magistrate Judge on August 5, 2004. Plaintiff

Karuna Anand and defendants are now both represented by counsel. Therefore, this matter is

referred back to the District Judge, with the Magistrate Judge responsible for performing his

usual discovery tasks associated with ordinary civil cases. Henceforth, the caption on documents

filed in this case shall be shown as CIV. NO. S-04-1575 LKK GGH.

Dated: 5/3/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_______________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

GGH:076

Anand1575.ref.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01575-LKK -GGH Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS F. RISELEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2417 DFL JFM P

vs.

WARDEN, PLEASANT

VALLEY STATE PRISON,

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 24, 2005, petitioner was ordered to file a

motion to stay or file an amended petition within thirty days. On November 21, 2005, plaintiff

filed a request to stay the instant action pending exhaustion of state remedies, noting that he has

petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review this court’s decision that

petitioner’s claims are not exhausted. However, plaintiff’s filing was not a motion, did not

contain a declaration, and fails to set forth good cause for his failure to exhaust his claims earlier. 

By order filed April 25, 2005, plaintiff was advised that in his motion to stay, petitioner must

also demonstrate that good cause existed for his failure to exhaust his sixth and seventh claims at

the same time he exhausted his other claims. “Because granting a stay effectively excuses a

petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 30 Filed 02/06/06 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

appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to

exhaust his claims first in state court.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535

(2005). Such a stay is appropriate when petitioner shows good cause for his failure to exhaust

earlier and merit to the claims he is seeking to exhaust. Id., at 1535. Petitioner’s filing does not

demonstrate such good cause.

In an abundance of caution, petitioner will be provided one final opportunity in

which to file a motion that complies with the requirements of Rhines, supra. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s November 21, 2005 request for stay is denied without prejudice; 

2. Within twenty days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file a motion to

stay these proceedings; said motion shall be briefed according to Local Rule 78-230(m) and shall

address the question of petitioner’s good cause for his failure to earlier exhaust his claims

pursuant to Rhines, supra.

DATED: February 6, 2006. 

/001

rise2417.mts 

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 30 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Print a Receipt Using Show Item

To print a receipt using Show Item, complete the following steps:

1. From the Check Processing tab, click Batch Management. Select or enter your preferred 

batch search conditions.

Under Batch Search Conditions, optional

• Select the OTC Endpoint you want to print a receipt for by checking the 

box(es) under the Select column

Under Created On Date, optional

• Enter the From and To date range

• The From and To Created On Date must be entered in MM/DD/YYYY format.

• The Created On Date range cannot exceed 30 days. Additionally, if more than a 

1,000 batches are created within 30 days, then only the most recent 1,000 batches 

appear.

• If you run a search with the default From and To Created On Date range values, the 

search results include the most recent 30 days of batches that you have access to 

view. If more than 1,000 batches are created within the 30 days, then only the most 

recent 1,000 batches appear.

• If you run a search without specifying any criterion (with the exception of the Batch 

ID field), the search results include the most recent 30 days of batches that you have 

access to view. If more than 1,000 batches are created within 30 days, then only the 

most recent 1,000 batches appear.

• Enter the Batch ID, optional

If the only search criteria entered is a valid Batch ID, then only a single result appears 

regardless of other search criteria specified.

• Enter the Cashier ID, optional

Under Batch Status, optional

• Select the Status you want to view by checking the Open or Closed box 

under the Select column

2. Click Search. The View Batch page appears.

3. Click the Batch ID hyperlink. The View Checks page appears.

Application Tips

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

If a batch is in use and another user attempts to access the same batch, a Batch Lock 

message appears stating the batch is in use and he/she cannot access the batch.

4. Click the Item ID of each scanned check. An image of the check and details of the check 

appear as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. View Checks Page (Receipt)

5. Click Show Item. The Show Item page appears.

6. Click Receipt. The receipt appears. 

7. Click Print to print the receipt.

Account numbers and User Defined Fields (UDFs) that are marked as Personally 

Identifiable Information (PII) are masked. If there are more than five characters, OTCnet 

masks all but the last four numbers. If there are five characters or less, the system will 

mask all but the last character.

8. Click Close to close the receipt.

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return to Batch Summary to return to the batch summary page

Application Tip

Application Tip

Additional Buttons
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4601 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4601

  To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a 
  consolidated communication facility at Marine Corps Logistics Base 
                            Albany, Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2024

  Mr. Ossoff introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a 
  consolidated communication facility at Marine Corps Logistics Base 
                            Albany, Georgia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``MCLB Albany Innovation Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONSOLIDATED 
              COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 
              ALBANY, GEORGIA.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Defense 
for fiscal year 2025 $64,100,000 for the construction of a consolidated 
communication facility at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia.
                                 <all>
```
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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis seeking relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 13, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. On January 26, 2006, process directed to defendant Fernandez was

returned unserved because he could not be located. Plaintiff must provide additional information

to serve this defendant. Plaintiff promptly shall seek such information through discovery, the

California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov't. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to

plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may

seek judicial intervention.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 93 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed June 14, 2005.

2. Within 60 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and submit

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court with the following documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Fernandez; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed June 14, 2005; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) or show

good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: April 20, 2006.

\004

\arms2136.8e

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 93 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

 

D. L. RUNNELS, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 form

 2 copies of the June 14, 2005 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 93 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 64884.

#### V. Christensen Co. and Portland Fish Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/30057 and 59/26854(B) (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CIV. NO. S-90-520 LKK/JFM

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

MITCHELL J. KLEMASKE,

Plaintiff,

v. CIV. NO. S-04-1750 FCD/KJM

MICHAEL BRUNNELL, et al., NON-RELATED CASE ORDER

Defendants.

 /

The court has received the Notice of Related Cases concerning

the above-captioned cases. See Local Rule 83-123 (1997). The

court has determined, however, that it is inappropriate to relate

or reassign the cases, and therefore declines to do so. This order

is issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect

Case 2:04-cv-01750-LKK-JFM Document 19 Filed 09/22/05 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

on the status of the cases, including any previous Related (or NonRelated) Case Order of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01750-LKK-JFM Document 19 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:




(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 16, 2011/s/David P. ClarkDavid P. ClarkChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Document Capture Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Document Capture Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 162 ) IV-C-129 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00 AM Sheet 162 of 232P. 2



### 9 A \ 

# W • UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

• r- C.C Q 1QP< * OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N
Mr . Jame s E . Pase k Genera l Motor s Corporatio n Genera l Motor s Technica l Cente r 3040 0 Moun

d Roa d Warren , M I 48090-901 5 Dea r Mr . Pasek : Thi s lette r i s a follow-u p t o our recen t phon e conversation s concerning Genera l Motors ' onboard hardwar e evaluatio n testing . I n thos e phon e conversations , I requeste d a briefing on your evaluatio n o f EPA' s simplifie d hardwar e concept . Whil e we ar e willing t o mee t wit h yo u Septembe r 16 , 1988 , I mus t reiterat e ou r desir e t o ge t detailed , technica l briefing whic h provide s EP Aa basi s analyz e an

d critiqu e the tes t progra mresult s you presente d Actin g Assistan t Administrato r Don Cla yon Augus t 16 , 1988 . onboar d on a t o t o W e need t o understan d the tes t procedure s an d vie wth e har d dat a fro

m your tes t program . Furthermore , we fee l i t i s necessar

yt o se e the hardwar e tha t yo u evaluated . Th e briefing conten t I a

mrequesting wil l facilitat e ou r understanding o f you r evaluatio n effort s an d i s simila r in natur e t o tha t whic h we provide d t o G

M an d othe r MVM

Amembe r companie s on Apri l 13 , 1988 . I f yo u have an yquestion s concerning thi s request , cal l m e a t 313/668-4338 . Sincerel yyours ,

Cheste r J . France , Chie f Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h

cc : Richard Wilson , EP A Charle s Gray , EP

A Samue l Leonard , G

M Docke t A-85-2 1 / Docke t A-87-1 1 \/P. 3

° V& mo* * ^o* ^
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

27

28

________________________________________________________________________

Patrick H. Dwyer, SBN 137743

P.O. Box 1705

Penn Valley, CA 95946

530-432-5407

Facsimile: 530-432-5439

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

____________________________________

 ) CASE NO. CIV.S-04-2314 MCE CGH

CLYDE TERRY, an individual )

ANNE TERRY, an Individual, ) ORDER GRANTING 

 )

Plaintiffs ) CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

v. )

 ) ON RULE 12 MOTION

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY )

COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, )

a corporation; and )

 )

KENNEL PAK, INC., a corporation; )

 )

GENTZLER & SMITH ASSOCIATES, a )

corporation )

 )

Defendants. ) 

____________________________________)

Having reviewed the mutual Request for Continuance of the Hearing of the

Rule 12 Motion submitted by counsel for Plaintiffs Clyde and Anne Terry and Defendants

Kennel Pak, Inc. and Gentzler and Smith Associates, and there being good cause shown

therefore:

It is hereby ordered that the date of the Hearing on Defendants’ Kennel Pak,

Inc. and Gentzler and Smith Associates Rule 12 Motion be continued from July 25, 2005,

until August 8, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3.

Dated: June 22, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02314-MCE -GGH Document 27 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 1