alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1



            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
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 small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal 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.


                                 /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: 11-7-05                    ____________________________________________
                                 Donald R. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**CornerstoneIndustrial Minerals, Inc. Tucker Hill perlite mine expansion project plan ofoperations amendment no. 7
DEIS|Appendices|
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.59:C 81/DRAFT

Item Number: 0629-E-09 (online)

CGP systemNumber:001086228
December 7, 2018
(Reap. Dec. 8453)

Entry No. 824120.

#### S. Stern, Henry & Co. *v.*United States

(Decided June 17, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that, at or about the date of ex*525portation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, at the value found by the appraiser, less 25 per centum of the net unit invoice prices, plus packing, as invoiced.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper export value of the merchandise covered by this appeal, consisting of 543lit yards of netting, to be the appraised value, less 25 per centum of the net unit invoice prices, plus packing, as invoiced. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
98-3211 (La. 4/23/99)

#### STATE ex rel. Lawrence PANSY, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-3211.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Pansy, Lawrence Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. “D” Number 91-60; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 98-KH-1184

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J. not on panel.
Case No. 6,956.

#### HUTCHINSON v. DECATUR.

[3 Crunch, C. C. 291.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1828.

Verdict — New Trial.

If the jury take out the plaintiff’s account, without the consent of the defendant, the court, will grant a new trial.

The jury having taken out an account of the plaintiff without the defendant’s consent,- came in and declared their verdict.

Mr. Redin, for plaintiff,

before the verdict was entered and affirmed, discovered the error, and requested that the paper should be withdrawn, and the jury sent out again with an instruction that the paper was not evidence; which THE COURT (nem. con.) granted.

The jury then retired and returned a verdict for a smaller sum.

R. S. Coxe, for defendant,

moved for a new trial, and cited Irvine v. Cook, 15 Johns. 239, and Penfield v. Carpenter, 13 Johns. 350.

New trial granted.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Veeco Instruments Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John R. Peeler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ JOHN R. PEELER           |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | John R. Peeler               |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer      |   |
|   | Veeco  Instruments Inc. |   |
|   | July 28, 2010           |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to VeecoInstruments Inc. and will be retained by Veeco Instruments Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Terry D. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 04-4182.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 7, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.

Larry Curtis Pace, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.

Terry D. Williams, Osceola, MO, Pro Se.

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Terry Williams pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms. The presentence report recommended an increase in base offense level for possessing the firearms in connection with another felony; Mr. Williams objected to this enhancement under *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). At sentencing, the district court1 stated that it could use the Guidelines for advisory purposes, and found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Williams had possessed the firearms in connection with drug sales. Applying the enhancement and arriving at a Guidelines impris*734eminent range of 57-71 months, the court imposed a sentence of 57 months in prison and 3 years’ supervised release. Mr. Williams appeals his sentence, arguing that the enhancement was erroneous under *Blakely*and *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

We conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under an advisory Guidelines scheme, and that the sentence was not unreasonable. *See Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 756-57, 764-67 (Guidelines are only advisory, courts should review sentences for unreasonableness); *United States v. Pirani,*406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc) (holding *Booker*error is avoided when district court calculates proper Guidelines sentencing range, treats Guidelines as advisory, and imposes reasonable sentence), *petition for cert. filed,*(U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
# C_2018094EN.01001701.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA

(Case T-196/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of an application - Selection procedure - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Duty to provide reasons - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal))

(2018/C 094/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: C. Manolopoulos, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015, Gyarmathy v FRA (F 97/13, EU:F:2015:7), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Gyarmathy

FRA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

1

---
Exhibit
      31.1




CERTIFICATION




I,
      Ben
      Jamil, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Security Intelligence
      Technologies, 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.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer 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 registrant and we have:




a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the 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)
      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




c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our 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:




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.




Dated:  February
      20, 2007






/s/
                Ben
                JamilBen
              Jamil, Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0048. CHARLES J. MORGAN v. AMY E. STONE.

The appeal in this case was docketed on August 28, 2015. Appellant’s brief

and enumeration of errors were due on September 17, 2015. On September 24, 2015,

this Court ordered Appellant to file his brief and enumeration of errors no later than

October 5, 2015. As of the date of this Order, appellant’s brief and enumeration of

errors have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as

abandoned. See Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a); Reese v. State, 216 Ga. App. 773 (456

SE2d 271) (1995). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/23/2015

November 23, 2015
---

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the
Contract) Entered into by and between Mr. Li Xiangqian (the
Guarantor)and Longgang Branch, Shenzhen Development Bank (the Creditor) on January 21, 2011

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: Shenfa Longgang Ebaozi 20110120001-2;
- As guarantor, Mr. Li Xiangqian undertakes to assume joint and several
  liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Obligor)s indebtedness
  towards Shenzhen Development Bank under the Comprehensive Credit Facility
  Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.: Shenfa Longgang Zongzi
  20110120001) from January 26, 2011 to January 18, 2012, and the maximum amount
  secured is RMB200 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be
  guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay
  off the debt in the event the Obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including
  the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original
  expiry date due to default of the Obligor or the guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty: The guaranty shall cover all of the loan
  principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation,
  damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost,
  lawyers fee, notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred
  to the Creditor in realizing its creditors right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of
  this Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility
  Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility
  Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Payment on demand
- Guarantee period
- Guarantee Responsibility
- Instances of Breach of Contract and its Liabilities
- Declaration, guaranty and undertaking of the Guarantor
- Amendment of the Contract
- Effectiveness and Disputation settlement

---
**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**

|   | 1.     | The                  Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the                  “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|   | 2.     | Information                  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                  the                  financial condition and results of operations of the                  Company.                                         |

| /s/                  Xiangqian Li              |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Xiangqian                  Li                  |   |   |
| Chief                  Executive Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal                  Executive Officer) |   |   |
|                                           |   |   |
| /s/                  Yongbin Han               |   |   |
| Yongbin                  Han                   |   |   |
| Chief                  Financial Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal                  Financial Officer) |   |   |

*A        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been        provided to China BAK Battery, Inc. and will he retained by China BAK Battery,        Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff        upon        request.*

----
Before the First Division,

October 9, 1941

No. 46422.

#### Petition 6068-R of S. S. Kresge Co., Inc. (New York).

*290Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The facts in this case appear to be undisputed. The customs broker who made the entry testified that no appeal to reappraisement was taken following the appraiser’s advance because the duplicate notice of such advance had not been received by him and he did not learn of the increase in value until after the statutory time for filing appeals to reappraisement had expired. Prom an examination of the record and consideration of the facts, the court was satisfied that entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue or deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit
13.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT


AND
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 Fundtech Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form
20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yoram Bibring, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




Date:
September 16, 2009




/s/
      Yoram BibringName:
      Yoram BibringTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial
Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech
Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 November 16, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-13287

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-60353-CV-FAM

JASON GAMBA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

CITY OF SUNRISE, a municipal corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee,

ROBERT MISITI, Captain, et al, individuals,

Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(November 16, 2005)

Before BLACK, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Gamba brought this action claiming that the City of Sunrise (the

“City”) unlawfully terminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Family

and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1) (the “FMLA”). Gamba

was a probationary police officer for the City, but was terminated for failing to

complete his probationary period satisfactorily. Gamba contends that his

termination was in retaliation for having requested leave under the FMLA.

The FMLA does not insulate an employee who has requested medical leave

from being terminated for poor performance. So long as the employer would have

taken the same action it did regardless of the request for leave, there is no statutory

violation. Strickland v. Water Works and Sewer Bd. of the City of Birmingham,

239 F.3d 1199 (11 Cir. 2001). Although Gamba contends his termination was in th

retaliation for having requested leave under FMLA, the City’s position that he was

terminated after numerous documented instances of unsatisfactory job performance

is well-supported by the record. Gamba was given, and does not dispute that he

received, several written notices of problems in his job performance during his

probationary period.

The district court noted that Gamba “produced virtually no evidence in

response” except to point to the temporal relationship between the leave request
3

and his termination. Where the employer produces significant evidence of the

employee’s poor performance, it is not enough that the request for leave and the

termination are closely related in time. Wascura v. City of South Miami, 257 F.3d

1238, 1248 (11 Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment for employer where th

employee presented virtually no evidence, other than temporal proximity of the

events).

Having carefully reviewed the briefs and the record, and finding no error in

the district court’s order granting summary judgment, we conclude that the

judgment is due to be

AFFIRMED.