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





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Rik J. Deitsch, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Nutra Pharma Corp.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;



3.

Based  on  my  knowledge,  the financial statements,  and  other  financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial  condition,  results  of  operations  and  cash  flows  of  Nutra Pharma Corp. as of, and for, the periods presented in the report;



4.

I am  responsible  for  establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls  and procedures (as such term is  defined  in Regulation  13a-14  of the Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934)  for  Nutra Pharma Corp., and have:



(i)

Designed such disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure that material information  relating

to  Nutra Pharma Corp.,  including  its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others

within those entities, particularly  during  the period  in  which  the  periodic  reports  are  being

prepared;



(ii)

Evaluated  the effectiveness  of  Nutra Pharma Corp.'s disclosure controls  and  procedures  as  of

a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and



(iii)

Presented in the report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and

procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Nutra Pharma Corp. auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (or  persons  fulfilling  the equivalent function):



(i)

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely

affect Nutra Pharma Corp.'s  ability  to record,  process,  summarize  and report financial data and

have identified for Nutra Pharma Corp.'s  auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in internal controls;

and



(ii)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a

significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and



6.

I have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: May 26, 2004



/s/ Rik J. Deitsch



__________________________

Rik J. Deitsch

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
VI 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1772 

For the relief of Patricia Macarelli, in her capacity as administratrix of 

the estate of Edward Brian Halloran. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Patricia Macarelli, in her capacity as 

administratrix of the estate of Edward Brian Halloran. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF PATRICIA MACARELLI. 

4 (a) PAYMENT.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

5 pay, out of funds not otherwise appropriated, the amount 

6 of $2,061,000.00, the judgment entered by the United 

7 States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on 

8 May 6, 2009, plus interest as provided by section 1304 

9 of title 31, United States Code, to compensate Patricia 

10 Macarelli, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate 


jbell on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1772 IS

1 of Edward Brian Halloran, for costs related to and dam2 ages arising from the murder of Edward Brian Halloran 

3 in Massachusetts in May 1982 as described in Claim No. 

4 01–11346–WGY, filed in the United States District Court 

5 for the District of Massachusetts and Claim No. 09– 

6 1951;09–1952 filed in the United States Court of Appeals 

7 for the First Circuit. 

8 (b) SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.—The payment under 

9 subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of 

10 Patricia Macarelli against the United States in connection 

11 with the matter described in such subsection. 

12 (c) NO INFERENCE OF LIABILITY.—Nothing in this 

13 Act shall be construed as an inference of liability on the 

14 part of the United States. 

15 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS’ AND AGENTS’ FEES. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for an amount 

17 exceeding 25 percent of the amount paid pursuant to sec18 tion 1 to be paid to, or received by, any agent or attorney 

19 for any service rendered in connection with the payment 

20 under this Act, as set forth in section 2678 of title 28, 

21 United States Code. 

22 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—Any person who violates sub23 section (a) shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be 

24 fined under title 18, United States Code. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**




**CERTIFICATIONS**




I,
      James
      Wensveen, certify that:




1. I
      have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Fortune Oil & Gas, Inc.




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 statements
      made, in light of the circumstances under which such 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respect the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of Fortune Oil & Gas, Inc.
      as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.




4. I
      am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for Fortune Oil & Gas,
      Inc. I have recently commenced employment with Fortune Oil & Gas, Inc. We
      are planning the following:




a) to
      design
      such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;




b) to
      evaluate
      the effectiveness of Fortune Oil & Gas, Inc.'s disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to our annual report for the year
      ending December 31, 2006 (the "Evaluation Date"); and




c) to
      provide
      conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
      based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;




5. I
      have not
      identified and evaluated all significant deficiencies in the design or operation
      of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
      to
      record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
      the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls.




6. I
      have not
      identified any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other
      employees who have a significant role in Fortune Oil & Gas, Inc.'s internal
      controls.




7. I
      am in the
      process of implementing significant internal controls relating to our business.
      I am not aware of any significant changes in internal controls which
      significantly affect internal controls previously in place by management.






**FORTUNE
                OIL & GAS, INC.***Date:
                November 16, 2005*
              By:
              /s/ James
                WensveenJames Wensveen*Chief
                Executive Officer*


**
January 22, 2016 

Mr. Barry Weiss 

Department Chair 

Aviation Maintenance Technology 

Delaware Technical & Community College 

21499 Rudder Lane 

Georgetown, DE 19947 

Dear Mr. Weiss: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 147 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not 

process your request, gives you some important information about how we have handled 

similar requests, and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your November 19, 2015, exemption request for Delaware Technical & 

Community College into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-6455), but we are unable to 

process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would 

provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an 

exemption. 

 Any more information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without telling you 

further. 

If you have any questions or need more time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brandon Roberts 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
(Reap. Dec. 9652)

#### United States *v.*Rafael Ferran Martinez, a/c Pablo Cedeno

Entry No. 6370.

*627(Decided April 7, 1960)

*George Ooehran Boub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Darnel I. Auster,*trial attorney) , for tlie plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain concrete reinforcing bars exported from Belgium is the subject of this collector’s appeal for a reappraisement.

The record before the court discloses that the parties hereto are in agreement that export value is the proper basis of appraisement of the subject merchandise in issue, there being no higher foreign value, and that said value is represented by the following—

> 14" bars — $4.32 per 100 pounds

> %" bars — $3.95 per 100 pounds

> *y2"*bars — $3.86 per 100 pounds less total transport charges to

> Antwerp $148.41, and “putting on board expenses” $17.72, packed.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the concrete reinforcing bars in controversy and that said value is as tabulated above.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Kendall Cowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

|                                                                                                         |  |                                            |  |  |  |  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| /s/ Kendall Cowan                                                                                       |  |         |
| Name:  Kendall Cowan Title:  ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:  November 5,2004 |  |
|                                                                                                         |

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

----
No. 47066.

#### Protests 38963-K, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Certain of the plain woven cotton cloth table covers and napkins in question were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 911 (b) in view of T. D. 50277, in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1





The Board of Directors and Stockholders of


NATCO Group Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-71480, 333-11298 and 333-32020) on Form S-8 of NATCO Group Inc., of our
report dated February 23, 2004, except as to Note 10, which is as of March 15,
2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of NATCO Group Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and
cash flows for each of the three years ended December 31, 2002, which report
appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NATCO Group Inc.


                                              /s/ KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas


March 15, 2004
#### In the Matter of Marchesia W., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Jefferson County Department of *1096Social Services, Respondent; Marcos W. et al., Appellants.

[701 NYS2d 217]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondents appeal from an order of disposition adjudging their daughter to be a permanently neglected child and terminating their parental rights, freeing her for adoption. As the result of a stipulated order of disposition, respondents’ daughter had been in foster care since she was three months old. That order resulted from a petition alleging that respondents abused their daughter, resulting in her admission to a hospital with eight or nine broken ribs. There is no merit to respondents’ contention that petitioner, Jefferson County Department of Social Services (DSS), failed to demonstrate that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship *(see, Matter of Gregory B.,*74 NY2d 77, 86; *Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388, 390). DSS established that the caseworker made appointments for respondents for a psychological evaluation, recommended counseling and offered to make appointments for respondents, enrolled respondents in parenting classes, arranged for visitations between respondents and their daughter and provided transportation for those visits. After respondents relocated to Texas, the DSS caseworker attempted on two occasions to have their daughter transferred to an appropriate placement in Texas.

Family Court also properly concluded that DSS proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondents had failed to plan for the future of their daughter. Despite diligent efforts by DSS, respondents failed to comply with the terms of the stipulated order of disposition. After respondents moved to Texas, they did not visit with their daughter for 11 months. Although respondents kept in touch with the caseworker and the foster mother by telephone and made some efforts to attend parenting classes and counseling in Texas, the court found that those efforts were “too little too late”, and was not satisfied that respondents had resolved the issues that led to the placement of their daughter. (Appeals from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company")
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 15, 2005                /s/ Jonathan Ilan Ofir
                                       -----------------------
                                      Jonathan Ilan Ofir
                                      Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
## 2001 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-24-2001 

# D o e v . D elie

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ocke t 99-3019

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2001

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2001 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" D oe v . D e l ie " (2001). 2001 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 165. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2001/165

### Filed July 24, 2001

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 99-3019

JOHN DOE,
Appellant

v.
JOAN DELIE, Health Care Administrator; PAUL NOEL, Medical Director; DIANE MANSON, Medical Nurse/Grievance Officer; SOPHIE SWIKA, Medi cal Nurse; KIM ZIMMERMAN, Medical Nurse, and all other parties et al., relevant to this instant civil acti on against them; JAMES PRICE, Superintendent (SCI Pittsburgh)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 97-cv-01264) District Judge: Honorable Donald E. Ziegler
Argued September 11, 2000

O R D E R
At the direction of the Court it is hereby O R D E R E D that the Opinion of the Court in the above-entitled appeal is hereby amended to change the order of the concur ring and dissenting opinions. The concurring and dissent ing opinion of Judge Garth will follow the opinion of J udge Roth to correctly reflect the voting in the decisio n. That opinion will be followed by the concurring and diss enting opinion of Judge Nygaard. This amendment of the opi nion will not affect the date that the Court's judgment was entered.

### For the Court,

/s/Marcia M. Waldron Clerk
Dated: July 24, 2001

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30678 Summary Calendar

CHARLES G. STUMPF, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellee, Cross-Appellant - Cross-Appellee,

versus
GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXPRESSWAY COMMISSION ET AL.,
Defendants,

ST TAMMANY PARISH, JEFFERSON PARISH,
Defendants - Cross Appellees - Cross Appellants,

GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXPRESSWAY COMMISSION; RONALD GOUX; REED INGRAM; FRANK SIMONE; RICHARD BLANKE; HUNTER WAGNER, JR.; WILFRED GRIFFIN, JR; ROBERT SUTHERLIN,

Defendants - Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-3571

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1998 Before DUHE’ DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *No. 97-30678 -2- The Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission (GNOEC); GNOEC Chairman Robert Goux; GNOEC Commissioners Reed Ingram, Frank Simone, and Richard Blanke; GNOEC General Manager Hunter Wagner, Jr.; GNOEC Assistant Manager Wilfred Griffin, Jr.; and GNOEC Chief of Police Robert Sutherlin (collectively, the GNOEC Defendants); St. Tammany Parish; and Jefferson Parish appeal the denial of their motion for F ED . R. C IV . P. 11 sanctions following the summary-judgment dismissal of a civil RICO complaint filed by Charles G. Stumpf, Jr. Stumpf’s complaint sought treble damages for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962; alleged claims under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and the Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952; and alleged claims of unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with business relations, and slander. Stumpf has filed a cross-appeal challenging the dismissal of his complaint. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties we hold that the denial of Rule 11 sanctions was within the discretion of the district court. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Serv. , 128 F.3d 872, 884 (5th Cir. 1997); Thomas v. Capital Sec. Serv., Inc. , 836 F.2d 866, 872 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (interpreting former version of Rule 11). Stumpf’s cross-appeal is frivolous and we dismiss it as such. Khurana v. Innovative Health Care Sys., Inc. , 130 F.3d 143, 149 (5th Cir. 1997); CroweNo. 97-30678 -3- v. Henry , 43 F.3d 198, 203-06 (5th Cir. 1995); see Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The defendants/cross-appellees’ motion for an award of damages under Fed. R. App. P. 38 is GRANTED because the result of Stumpf’s appeal is obvious and the arguments of error are wholly without merit. Diaz v. Methodist Hosp. , 46 F.3d 492, 498 (5th Cir. 1995). We award the defendants double costs and $1500 in attorney fees, to be borne by Stumpf’s attorney, Stephen J. Caire. See Ruiz v. Medina , 980 F.2d 1037, 1038-39 (5th Cir. 1993).DENIAL OF FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c) MOTION AFFIRMED; CROSSAPPEAL DISMISSED; FED. R. APP. P. 38 MOTION GRANTED.