alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX 31-1

CERTIFICATION

I, Arthur Viola, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INFe-Human
Resources, Inc.;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 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

5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant'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 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: October 14, 2004

/s/  ARTHUR VIOLA
________________________
Arthur Viola
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Sole Director
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series Publications

# Brochures Prepared by NRC Staff

*Brief publications about NRC programs, designed for the general public and licensees. Other brochures may be available in ADAMS.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, August 02, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Publications Prepared by NRC Staff
          - Brochures Prepared by NRC Staff
          - Conference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors
          - Publications Prepared by NRC Contractors
          - Publications Resulting from International Agreements
          - Publications Prepared by NRC Staff for Knowledge Management
          - Publications Available in Adams
          - Drafts for Comment

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - Job Openings
                - ADVANCE Act
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors

#### Search NUREG-Series Pubs

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, August 02, 2024
#### Andrew Donlon, *as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, *Respondent.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
#### In the Matter of the Commissioners of the Central Park.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements in each case.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH TAFARO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

April 27, 1964. Denied.

*Mr. Norman Fischbein*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne*and *Mr. Peter Murray*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Global Monitoring LaboratoryEarth System Research Laboratories

Menu

        -   Home 
        -  About  About GMLDiversity, Equity, and InclusionScience ReviewsSafety ProgramEmploymentVisitingContact UsIntranet 
        -  People  OrganizationStaffStaff by DivisionEmployee Spotlight 
        -  Research  Research OverviewCarbon Cycle Greenhouse GasesGreenhouse gases and Ozone-depleting SubstancesOzone and Water VaporGlobal Radiation, Aerosols and CloudsPublications 
        -  Observing Networks  OverviewObservations OverviewMeasurement SitesField CampaignsAtmospheric Baseline ObservatoriesObservatory OperationsBarrow, AlaskaMauna Loa, HawaiiAmerican SamoaSouth PoleObserving NetworksGreenhouse Gas Reference NetworkHalocarbons and Trace GasesSurface RadiationFederated Aerosol NetworkOzoneWater Vapor 
        -  Data  DataBrowse Data ArchiveSearch for DataData by Research ProgramMeasurement SitesObsPackToolsData ViewerSolar CalculatorVisualizationData Visualization PagesSouth Pole Ozone Hole 
        -  Products  ProductsGreenhouse Gas IndexOzone Depletion IndexTrends in CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6CarbonTrackerUS Potent GHG TrackerObsPackMauna Loa Apparent TransmissionBarrow Snow Melt DatesSouth Pole Ozone HoleCalibration FacilitiesWMO Central Calibration LaboratoryCentral UV Calibration FacilityBroadband Solar Calibration FacilityWorld Dobson Ozone Calibration Centre 
        -  Information  NewsSeminarsEducation/OutreachStudent OpportunitiesFAQ'sPublicationsWebcamsSouth Pole WebcamMauna Loa WebcamsBarrow WebcamGlobal Monitoring Annual Conference						The 52nd Conference was  held May 21 - 22, 2024					 

#### Browse or Search Publications

#### Summary Reports

#### GML Annual Conference Agendas and Presentations

here.

#### Historical Documents

        - Research
        - Data
        - Observatory Operations
        - Education
        - News
        - Publications

Earth System Research LaboratoriesGlobal Monitoring Laboratory

Privacy Policy  |             Accessibility  |             Disclaimer  |             Usa.gov

 ** **

Site Contents

Contact Us  |  Webmaster

        - U.S. Department of Commerce
        - National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
        - NOAA Research
#### Gracecor Realty Co., Inc., Appellant, v William Hargrove, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 1]

—Order, Appellate Term, First Judicial Department (McCooe and Glen, JJ.; Parness, J. P., dissenting), entered April 1, 1994, affirming an order of Civil Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1991, which granted respondent-tenant’s motion to dismiss petitioner-landlord’s holdover proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject building is admittedly a lodging house, and, as such, a class B multiple dwelling *(see, 2009-2011 Third Ave. Corp. v Fifth Ave. Community Ctr.,*164 Misc 2d 257, 260 [Civ Ct, NY County, Evans, J.]) subject to rent stabilization *(see, Matter of Gottlieb v Mirabal,*123 AD2d 574, 577, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 609). Because respondent’s cubicle unit is not expressly excluded from coverage under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act, it was properly held to be a "housing accommodation” for rent stabilization purposes *(Matter of Ruskin v Miller,*172 AD2d 164; *Ghelardi v Donnelly,*NYLJ, Apr. 21, 1993, at 22, col 6 [Civ Ct, NY County, Taylor, J.]). Multiple Dwelling Law § 66 which might appear to suggest a different result is not a rent regulation statute and is thus inapplicable on the issue of regulated status. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.
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


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
649.com Inc.


/s/ Cary Martin                                   Date: March 29, 2005
--------------------------------------
Cary Martin
Secretary / Treasurer / Director


<PAGE>
No. 65585.

#### Bonwit Teller, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/7082, etc. (New York).

*465Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of knit nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
DLD
- 291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3073

___________ PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR., Appellant

v. H&R BLOCK , INC

. ; IRS OFFICE; 1040 TAXES, H&R Block;

JAMS WALST; FRAK KANE

__________________________ __________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 11

- 4452) District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 15, 2011 Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

( Filed: September 22, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Patrick Tillio appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his

com plaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the2

District Court’s order for abuse of discretion. See Frederico v. Home Depot , 507 F .3d 188, 192

- 93 (3d Cir. 2007); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996). For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. In July 2011, Tillio filed a complaint on the form provided by the U nited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint, however, is largely incomprehensible. For instance, in the space provided for the plaintiff to explain “what happened to you,” Tillio wrote only, “on TV NBC CH10 HR Bloc k FRAUD people and did my 1040 IRS taxes this.” On July 15, 2011, the District Court, sua sponte, dismissed Tillio’s complaint without prejudice and closed the case statistically, concluding that the complaint was “rambling and unclear” and therefore fail ed to meet the pleading standards set forth in Rule 8(a). Tillio then filed a timely notice of appeal. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Tillio’s complaint. Rule 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short a nd plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8; dismissal is appropriate in cases where the “complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague , or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Simmons v. Abruzzo , 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995). We agree with the District Court that this is such a case

– Tillio’s complaint fails to reveal any factual or legal basi s for a federal claim. Although district3

courts generally must allow plaintiffs leave to amend deficient complaints prior to dismissal, id. at 87, we are satisfied that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Tillio’s complaint witho ut providing leave to amend. Cf. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (explaining that district courts may dismiss complaints without leave to amend where amendment would be futile). Accordingly , we will summarily affirm the D istrict Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
SCAD-16-0000354 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

I N RE: ROBERT L. GARBETT, ESQ., (Deceased)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Wadsworth,

assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the July 31, 2020 final report, filed by Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel Bradley Tamm, as Successor Trustee, pursuant to Rule 2.20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), over the legal practice of deceased attorney Robert L. Garbett, and the record in this matter, we conclude that nothing further remains to be done in this trusteeship. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Successor Trustee Tamm is discharged. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-16-0000354 10-AUG-2020 09:51 AMIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall

close SCAD-16-0000354.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 10, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

2
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 15 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00593

- CR

TOMMY EARL EDWARDS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1362611

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance . In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial
court sentenced to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We di smiss the appeal.2

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certi fication is included in the record on appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports
the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel cons ists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and Donovan

. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
#### The Remington Paper Company, *Appellant, v.*Anna M. Dougherty and others, *Respondents.*

— (1.) So much of the order as awards an allowance above the sum of five per cent upon the judgment of $734.38 and interest to the 20th June, 1882, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and remainder of order affirmed. (2.) Order as to taxation of costs affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Hardin, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8473 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress a report in 

the event that the assessment of the Army force structure using the 

process known as ‘‘Total Army Analysis’’ does not include certain missions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2024 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself and Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress 

a report in the event that the assessment of the Army 

force structure using the process known as ‘‘Total Army 

Analysis’’ does not include certain missions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Total Army Analysis Explosive Ordnance Disposal Do6 mestic Response Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8473 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MISSIONS IN 

2 TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS. 

3 (a) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—If the Army con4 ducts an assessment of the Army force structure using the 

5 process known as ‘‘Total Army Analysis’’ and such assess6 ment does not include each covered mission, the Secretary 

7 of the Army shall submit to Congress a report that in8 cludes— 

9 (1) an explanation for excluding the covered 

10 mission in the assessment; and 

11 (2) an analysis of the risk assumed to the 

12 homeland by reason of excluding the covered mis13 sion. 

14 (b) COVERED MISSIONS.—In this section, a covered 

15 mission is any of the following: 

16 (1) A Defense Support of Civil Authorities mis17 sion. 

18 (2) A Very Important Personnel Protection 

19 Support Activity mission. 

20 (3) Any forces required for a mission referred 

21 to in paragraph (1) or (2). 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirement to submit 

23 reports under subsection (a) shall take effect on the date 

24 that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

25 Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANK BOYNES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued March 20, 1967

Decided May 22, 1967.

*Mr. Richard B. McGlynn,*Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent, State of New Jersey *(Mr. Brendan T.*Byrne, County Prosecutor of Essex County, attorney) .

*Mr. Milton A. Waldor*argued the cause for appellant.

*304The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a verdict of murder in the second degree. IJis two major grounds of appeal are (1) that the trial court erred in admitting his written statement into evidence, and (2) that the conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

We have examined the record and conclude that the finding of the trial judge that the defendant’s confession was voluntary was justified. Additionally, the trial in this matter began before the decision in *Miranda v. State of Arizona,*384 *U. S.*436, 86 *S. Ct.*1602, 16 *L. Ed. 2d*694 (1966), and thus the doctrine of *Miranda*for which defendant argues, is not constitutionally required. *Johnson v. State of New Jersey,*384 *U. S.*719, 86 *S. Ct.*1772, 16 *L. Ed. 2d*882 (1966). We are not disposed to apply *Miranda*retrospectively. *State v. Rudd,*49 *N. J.*310 (1967).

There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict.

We have examined defendant’s other grounds of appeal and find them without merit.

Affirmed.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Erawcis, Proctor, Hall, Schettiho and Haheman — 7.

*For reversal*— None.
Exhibit 21.1

# SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE COMPANY

Pathnet, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Pathnet Operating, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Pathnet Operating of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation

Pathnet/Idaho Power
License, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

Pathnet/Idaho Power Equipment,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

Pathnet Fiber Optics, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company.

Pathnet Equipment Leasing
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. (*)

Pathnet Real Estate LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company. (*)

* - subsidiaries of Pathnet Operating, Inc.
Exhibit 32.10

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Frontier Diversified Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 12, 2009
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  Annual  Report  of  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2000, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
-----------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
September 17, 2004

     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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.