alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Christopher Naughton, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Marshall Edwards, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) ) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within the entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared: (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in the report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of this disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 12, 2004                 /s/ CHRISTOPHER NAUGHTON   Christopher Naughton   Chief Executive Officer  
25
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8442 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8442

  To temporarily expand the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
    income eligibility of households that include certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2024

Ms. Porter (for herself and Mr. Valadao) introduced the following bill; 
           which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To temporarily expand the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
    income eligibility of households that include certain veterans.

    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 ``Setting the Table for Transition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXPANDED SNAP INCOME ELIGIBILITY OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT 
              INCLUDE CERTAIN VETERANS.

    For the purpose of determining income under the Food and Nutrition 
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) during the 100-day period that 
begins on the date a veteran receives a Report of Separation (DD form 
214) of a household that includes a member who is a veteran, only the 
income of such veteran shall be considered.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``veteran'' means an individual 
who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was 
discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than 
dishonorable.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2



EXHIBIT 99.1

  STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of Diamond Powersports, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pierre
Elliott, Chief Executive Officer, and Lisa Elliott, Secretary and Treasurer of
the Company, certify that:

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

  *   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Pierre Elliott
------------------------
Pierre Elliott
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer

April 22, 2003

/s/ Lisa Elliott
---------------------------------
Lisa Elliott
Director and Secretary and Treasurer

April 22, 2003


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  be  deemed  filed by the Company for purposes of
Section  18  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.
KYLE GORDON ROTHENBORG, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOSLYN SUAN ROTHENBORG, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee Kyle Gordon Rothenborg’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on November 8, 2014,

is hereby rejected. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000322 15-DEC-2014 10:49 AM

SCWC-12-0000322

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (FC-D NO. 02-1-3956)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, December 15, 2014.

Michael A. Glenn for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama Dennis E. W. O’Conner, Jr. and Lahela H. F. Hite for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
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 Ableauctions.com, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Abdul Ladha, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)

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

(2)

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ableauctions.com, Inc. and will be retained by Ableauctions.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Abdul Ladha



Abdul Ladha

Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
No. 47970.

#### Protests 977166-G, etc., of Schmid & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of'counsel that the merchandise in question is not toys, and is similar in all material respects (except component material of chief value and that they are not manger sets) to the small figures the subject of *Joseph Schmidt, Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct.188, C. D. 690), the claim that it is not subject to countervailing duty was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13790-13791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5355]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 19, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 55882, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. State Street Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Investors Financial Services 
Corporation, and thereby acquire Investors Bank and Trust Company, both 
of Boston, Massachusetts.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. First Priority Financial Corporation., Malvern, Pennsylvania; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the shares of 
First Priority Bank, Malvern, Pennsylvania.


[[Page 13791]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 20, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-5355 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RUFUS HOUSER, a/k/a Pookie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-95-12, CA-98-55-3)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 26, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus Houser, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Houser seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Houser, Nos. CR-95-12; CA-98-55-3 (N.D.W. Va. June

27, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 828 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 828

 To direct the reinstatement of an individual involuntarily separated 
   from an Armed Force solely on the basis of refusing to receive a 
                     vaccination against COVID-19.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2023

Mr. Dunn of Florida (for himself, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mr. Mills, Mr. 
  Ezell, Mr. Posey, Mr. Cloud, Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mrs. 
 Harshbarger, Mr. Gimenez, and Mr. Buchanan) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the reinstatement of an individual involuntarily separated 
   from an Armed Force solely on the basis of refusing to receive a 
                     vaccination against COVID-19.

    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 ``Troop Return Of Overdue Payment 
Act'' or the ``TROOP Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL INVOLUNTARILY 
              SEPARATED FROM AN ARMED FORCE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF 
              REFUSING TO RECEIVE A VACCINATION AGAINST COVID-19.

    (a) Reinstatement.--At the request of a covered individual, the 
Secretary concerned shall--
            (1) reinstate the covered individual as a member of the 
        Armed Force concerned, in the same rank and grade the covered 
        individual held at the time of separation from the Armed Force 
        concerned; and
            (2) include, in the computation of the retired or retainer 
        pay of such covered individual, the period between the 
        involuntary separation and the reinstatement of the covered 
        individual.
    (b) Back Pay.--A covered individual who was involuntarily 
discharged from an Armed Force and who makes a request under subsection 
(a) shall be entitled to back pay for the period between such 
separation and reinstatement of the covered individual.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``covered individual'' means an individual who 
        was involuntarily separated from an Armed Force solely on the 
        basis of the refusal of such individual to receive a 
        vaccination against COVID-19.
            (2) The term ``Secretary concerned'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 101 of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50471 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CRISTOBAL PEREZ BAUTISTA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:11

- CR

- 705

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cristobal Perez Bautista, federal prisoner # 87161

- 280, was convicted by guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced him to a total of 168 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. Over one year later, Bautista filed in district court a pro se motion for an extension of time in which

* 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 December 11, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50471 Document: 00512468205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2013No. 13

- 50471

to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. His motion was not accompanied by a § 2255 motion. The district court denied that motion for an extension of time. In this court, Bautista has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on ap peal, a motion requesting correction of the record, and an appellate brief. The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Bautista’s motion for an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Leon , 203 F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir. 2000 ). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Bautista’s motion is AFFIRMED, and his motions for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for correction of the record are DENIED.

2 Case: 13-50471 Document: 00512468205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2013
#### In the Matter of NATHAN TURESKY, an attorney at law.

June 30, 1967.

Respondent suspended from practice until further order of the Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Shelley, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc. for the period
          ended September 30, 2010 (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 Sunergy, Inc.

Dated: July 18, 2011

                                        /s/ Mark Shelley
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark Shelley
                                        Secretary, Treasurer and Director
                                        (Principal Financial Officer and
                                        Principal Accounting Officer)
                                        Sunergy, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sunergy, Inc. and will be retained
by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
JK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0562

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JEDEDIAH KEITH LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including June 2, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2020

03/26/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0562
| **Available As
Web 					Pages
or
**Adobe Acrobat PDF Files:**Executive					SummaryAppendicesA-FG-N**To OPM Home Page**Web page updated 6 April 2000** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION IN THE

OF MARYLAND • COURT OF APPEALS • OF MARYLAND Petitioner • Misc gocket AG
v. • No. 1-1 • September Term, 2016 WOO-MN KIM

Respondent ***********************************************

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736 and Respondent's acknowledgement therein that sufficient evidence exists to sustain allegations that he committed professional misconduct in violation of Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(b), (c) & (d) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct in effect at the time of the misconduct, it is this 16th day of sentember ,2016, ORDERED, that Woo-Jin Kim, Respondent, is hereby disbarred by consent from the practice of law in this State, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Woo-Jin Kim from the register of attorneys in this Court, notify Respondent of the filing of this order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-742(a)(1), and comply with the notice provisions set forth in Maryland Rule 19-761(b).

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. Senior Judge
#### Susan A. Wentworth Pierce, a widow, v. Brand Properties, Inc.

178 So. 168.

Division A.

Opinion Filed January 5, 1938.

*E. F. P. Brigham,*for Appellant;

*Inman Padgett,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal brings for review a final decree of foreclosure of a mortgage by the assignee of the *470mortgage and endorse© of the note which it was given to secure. The defense was that the loan for which the note and mortgage were given was a usurious transaction- and that the complainant became assignee and endorsee, after maturity, from an assignee and endorsee who was a party to acts which infected the transaction with the infirmity of usury.

No useful purpose can be served by setting forth the his- , tory of the transaction.

The questions presented resolve themselves into the one question, “Does the evidence as disclosed by the record substantially support the findings and decree of the Master and the Chancellor.” The answer must be in the affirmative and the decree must be affirmed. Stanley v. Thompson, 62 Fla. 576, 57 So. 196; Bank v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. 238; Baxton v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 So. 410; People’s Realty Co. v. Southern Colonization Co., 78 Fla. 628, 83 So. 527. Schonfeld v. Engler, 119 Fla. 138, 160 So. 879; Hill v. Padgett, 114 Fla. 519, 153 So. 911; Hilton v. Northern Cent. Trust Co., 114 Fla. 796, 154 So. 328; 308 East 79th Street Corp. v. Favorite, 111 Fla. 234, 149 So. 625; Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598, 145 So. 848.

So the decree is affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and.Buford, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.