alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
31.02 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 I,
Kenneth G.C. Telford, certify that: 1.          I
have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Essential Innovations Technology 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 officer(s) 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
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 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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and 5.          The
small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): (a)         all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b)         any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting. Date: September 7 2007 Kenneth G.C. Telford
Principal Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

December 11, 1958

No. 62576.

#### Seaboard Liquor Co. *v.*United States,

protests 123993-K, 124018-K, and 125945-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GEORGE CARL SAMPLE, CIV S-04-1132 FCD/KJM P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On July 26, 2006, at the end of a jury trial for plaintiff, Carl Sample, a prisoner in IFP status,

the undersigned ordered in open court, that the trial transcripts would be provided to the plaintiff

so that he may prepare for the retrial due to commence on September 24, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. Court Reporter, Michelle Babbitt, shall receive payment for copies of the trial

transcripts that will be provided to plaintiff, Carl Sample.

DATED: August 31, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01132-FCD-KJM Document 64 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-425 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SPACE COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JAPAN 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Washington April 25, 2003 

with 

Memorandum of Understanding 

and 

Agreement extending the Agreement 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Washington April 22, 2011 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 JAPAN 

 Space Cooperation 

Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Washington April 25, 2003; 

Entered into force April 25, 2003. 

With memorandum of understanding. 

And agreement extending the agreement. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Washington 

 April 22, 2011; 

Entered into force April 22, 2011.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEWIS E. JONES, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

20 USCMA 90, 42 CMR 282

No. 23,196

September 11, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Howard L. Kaplus,*and *Captain Stewart Pettet Davis*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Captain Benjamin G. Porter,*and *Captain Mark Rosenberg*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiam:

In material part, specification 1, Additional Charge III, alleges that, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 928, the accused “did . . . strike Private E-l Steven C. Cantrell in the face with his fists.” No averment indicates that the act was wrongful or unlawful. Consequently, the specification is insufficient to allege a violation of Article 128. See United States v Brice, 17 USCMA 336, 38 CMR 134 (1967); United States v Priester, 4 CMR 830 (AFBR 1952). The Government concedes error.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed as to specification 1, Additional Charge III, and the sentence. The findings of guilty as to the specification and the accused’s plea of guilty to the specification are set aside and the specification is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence.
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We  have  issued  our  reports  dated  September  19,  2002   accompanying   the
consolidated  financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Jaco Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration  Statement  of Jaco  Electronics,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  on Form
S-8/S-3  (File  No.   33-89994,   effective   March  3,  1995),  as  amended  by
Post-Effective   Amendment  No.  1  to  the   Registration   Statement  of  Jaco
Electronics,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  on  Form  S-8/S-3  (File  No.  333-49873,
effective April 10, 1998) and the  Registration  Statement of Jaco  Electronics,
Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 (File No.  333-49877,  effective April 10,
1998).



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
    ------------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP


Melville, New York
September 19, 2002
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

ALONZO McKINNEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1678 LKK GGH P

vs.

DAVID ORTIZ, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's August 5, 2005, dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues

satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

Case 2:04-cv-01678-LKK -GGH Document 35 Filed 01/13/06 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

1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issue presented in the instant petition: Whether petitioner has exhausted state court

remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED: January 12, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01678-LKK -GGH Document 35 Filed 01/13/06 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Delonzo Gallon,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2422 MCE PAN P

vs. Notice

D. L. Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking leave to

commence an action against prison officials for civil rights

violations in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $150 filing fee required by

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (2000). No initial partial filing fee has

been assessed. However, plaintiff must make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust 

Case 2:04-cv-02422-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 06/03/05 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

fund account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody

of plaintiff is required to forward payments from plaintiff’s

account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the

account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this notice and

a copy of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application upon the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and deliver

a copy of this notice to the clerk’s financial division.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02422-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 06/03/05 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10799 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DANIEL L MAJOR; SHANGO H ALVES Defendants-Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-70-4
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel L. Major and Shango H. Alves appeal the sentences imposed by the district court on remand. Major argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level by six points under U.S.S.G. § 2K1.1(a)(5) because the theft offense involved a firearm described in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30), which had been repealed at the time of his sentencing. Because Major could have raised this issue in his first appeal but he failed to do so, he has waived it. See UnitedNo. 06-10799

2 States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 530 U.S. 120 (2000). Major and Alves argue that the district court erred in enhancing their sentences based on facts that were not alleged in the indictment or found by the jury. Major also argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on the district court’s finding that the offense involved 20stolen firearms, because he was acquitted of theft offirearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. The district court did not err in finding all the facts relevant to its determination of the guidelines sentencing range for Major and Alves. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err in relying on conduct from the theft count upon which thejury acquitted Major at trial. See United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 264 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 456 (2006). Major argues that the district court’senhancement ofhissentenc e because the offense involved stolen firearms constitutes double counting because stolen firearms were taken into account in the base offense level for theft of firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Because Major was not convicted of
an offense involving a stolen firearm listed in the application note to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 and his base offense level was determined under § 2K2.1(a)(5), the twolevel increase does not constitute impermissible double counting. See United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 323 (5th Cir. 1999). Major argues that distric t court plainly erred in refusing to impose a sentence outside of the advisory guideline range without good reason. He also argues that United States v. Duhon, 440 F.3d 711, 715 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (May 18, 2006) (No. 05-11144), is contrary to Booker

. Major has not shown that Duhon is contrary to Booker and has not shown that the district court plainly erred in refusing to impose a sentence outside o f the guidelines range without good reason. AFFIRMED.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Grant Prideco, Inc.
 September 28, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ Michael McShaneName: Michael McShaneTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Matthew D. FitzgeraldName: Matthew D. FitzgeraldTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2116 FCD DAD P

vs.

W.A. DUNCAN, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

On April 19, 2006, the court ordered respondents to file their answer to

petitioner’s second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus and to explain why they had

failed to comply with the court’s March 6, 2006 order. Respondents filed their response and

answer on April 24, 2006.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s April 19, 2006 order to show cause is discharged; and

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a reply, if

any, to respondents’ answer.

DATED: April 26, 2006.

DAD:4

mont2116.reply

Case 2:04-cv-02116-FCD-DAD Document 25 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 1
### ozone docket--OMB Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/27/2011 01:59 PM

Jan King Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group phone: (919) 541-5665 fax: (919) 541-2664 Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/27/2011 01:59 PM -----

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine

_ J.

_ Kymn@omb.eop.gov> To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Margaret Morrison/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kimber Scavo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/26/2011 02:25 PM Subject: RE: CO meeting on Friday morning at 9:30?

Hi Lydia, I can set up for 9:30. Alternatively, I have a proposal for Th afternoon. Could someone give me a call? Thanks! Christine -----Original Message----- From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:54 PM To: Kymn, Christine J. Cc: Deirdre Murphy; Nealson Watkins; Lewis Weinstock; David Orlin; Jan King; Margaret Morrison; Karen Martin Subject: CO meeting on Friday morning at 9:30?

Christine,

Based on my survey of our folks, it seems that people will be available for a CO interagency meeting on Friday at or after 9:30 AM. You had said you'd like to have it early in the day, so I'm proposing 9:30 as the time. Is that OK with you? If so, Margaret will send you a schedule notice and a phone call-in number. Thanks.
# EUR-Lex - 52007PC0820 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007PC0820

**Commission Opinion in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 251(2) point c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council Common Position on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2186/93 amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty /* COM/2007/0820 final - COD 2005/0032 */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 13.12.2007

COM(2007) 820 final

2005/0032 (COD)

COMMISSION OPINION in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 251(2) point c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council

common position on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2186/93

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

2005/0032 (COD)

COMMISSION OPINION in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 251(2) point c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council

common position on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for business registers for statistical purposes and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2186/93

1. BACKGROUND

- Proposal submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council (COM(2005)112 –– 2005/0032 (COD)) on 5 April 2005

- Opinion of the European Parliament (first reading) (PE A6-0194/2006) on 1 June 2006

- Adoption of the common position by the Council on 21 May 2007

- Opinion of the European Parliament (second reading) (P6_TA-PROV(2007)0479 – A6-0353/2007) on 25 October 2007

2. PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The objective of the proposal is to update the existing Regulation on statistical business registers in order to account of new requirements, in particular:

- globalisation of the economy has created the need to collect information on enterprise groups;

- the integration of activities of the different sectors has called for a full coverage of the whole economy;

- the Single Market requires improved statistical comparability, which notably depends on the availability of harmonised sources for the population of businesses operating in the EU.

3. COMMISSION’S OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY PARLIAMENT

3.1. Summary of the Commission's position

The Parliament adopted two amendments. The Commission can accept both as they stand; the amendments are legal clarifications that do not change the substance.

4. Conclusion

The Commission accepts all the amendments adopted by the Parliament.
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

Order Granting Defendants’ First Request for an Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

PATRICK R. HOLLEY, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

2:04-civ-1425 GEB PAN P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIRST REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

Good cause appearing, Defendant Herrera is granted a 30 day extension to respond to

Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production. Defendant Herrera’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Third

Request for Production shall be due on or before April 6, 2006.

Dated: March 9, 2006. 

12

holl1425.rpext

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 88 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4888 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4888

 To include Czechia in the list of foreign states whose nationals are 
 eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 nonimmigrants if 
  United States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of 
                                Czechia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

Mr. Welch (for himself and Mr. Ricketts) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To include Czechia in the list of foreign states whose nationals are 
 eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 nonimmigrants if 
  United States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of 
                                Czechia.

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

SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANTS TRADERS.

    For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(E)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(i)), Czechia shall be 
considered to be a foreign state described in such section if the 
Government of Czechia provides similar nonimmigrant status to nationals 
of the United States.
                                 <all>
```