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

CERTIFICATION

Certification of President



I, Ramon Chimelis, president, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Big Sky Industries II, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

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

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Dated: January 16, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 27, 2014

NO. 03-14-00114-CR

Sara Dishman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order rendered by the district court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the district court’s

order. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s order. The appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42540-42541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20809]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-676-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

August 1, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 30, 1997, Viking Gas Transmission Company 
(Viking), 825 Rice Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117, filed a request 
with the Commission in Docket No. CP97-676-000, pursuant to Sections 
157.205 and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to add a new delivery point for 
transportation services that Viking currently provides for Northern 
States Power Company

[[Page 42541]]

(NSPM) authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-414-
000, all as more fully set forth in the request on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Viking proposes to establish an additional delivery point at 
Viking's existing M.P. 2219 + 10.58 in Chisago County, Minnesota. The 
facilities Viking proposes to install and own at the proposed delivery 
point include a 12'' hot tap, a 2'' side valve, meter station piping, 
measurement, valving, data acquisition and control equipment, an 
appurtenant facilities including a small metering building. The 
estimated cost of these facilities would be $207,900. NSPM has agreed 
to reimburse Viking for the actual cost of these facilities.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) a motion 
to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 
of the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed 
activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the 
time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not 
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20809 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 9260.

#### Metzger *v.*Roberts.

(Decided April 24, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

*Messrs. Taylor S Harris,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. L. T. Farr*and *Mr. C. P. Rothwell,*for defendant in' error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shatjck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
No. 00-6918.

#### Jones *v.*Catoe, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
D.C.  20549








FORM
8-K





CURRENT
REPORT





PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF


THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934








Date of
Report (date of earliest event reported): May 5, 2008











ATLANTIC BANCGROUP,
INC.


(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)








Florida
            001-15061
            59-3543956(State
      or other jurisdiction
            Commission
      File Number
            (I.R.S.
      EmployerOf
      incorporation)
            
            Identification
      No.)








1315
South Third Street


Jacksonville Beach, Florida
32250


(address
of principal executive offices)


Registrant’s
telephone number: (904) 247-9494

























ITEM
2.02.  Results of Operation and Financial Condition





On May 5,
2008, Atlantic BancGroup, Inc. (the “Company”) issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. A copy of the press
release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this report.





ITEM
9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.





(c)
Exhibits.





The
following exhibit is being furnished with this Report:





99.1
            Press
      Release (solely furnished and not filed for purposes of Item
      9.01).








Date:   May
5, 2008




Atlantic BancGroup,
      Inc.(Registrant)By:
            /s/ Barry W. ChandlerBarry
      W. ChandlerPrincipal
      Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-161641, 333-128310, 333-114810 and 333-90338) on Form S-3 and the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-143420 and 333-53224) on Form S-8 of Immunomedics, Inc.(“Immunomedics”) of our reports dated August 24, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Immunomedics and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Immunomedics, included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2011. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

MetroPark, New Jersey 

August 24, 2011
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Silicon Mountain Holdings, 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 officers 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 have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
   
 Date:
May 19, 2008
    

/s/
Juan C. Perez
Juan C. Perez, Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary
**EXHIBIT
10 a) (i)**





This
Agreement is made this ____ day of April, 2004 by and between STATE BANK OF LONG
ISLAND (“the Bank”) and the employee of the Bank executing this agreement (the
“Employee”).


The Bank
and the Employee are parties to one or more of the following agreements, all
relating to deferred compensation to be paid by the Bank to the Employee
(collectively, the “Agreements”):


(1)
    Supplemental
      Employee Retirement Agreement;


(2)
    Deferred
      Compensation Agreement relating to director’s
fees


(3)
    Deferred
      Compensation Agreement relating to salary.


In order
to provide uniformity of payment of amounts due to the Employee under the
Agreements, it is hereby agreed by and between the Bank and the Employee as
follows:


1.  Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any or all of the Agreements:


(a)  the age
of the Employee set forth in Section 5, subsections (a), (b), (c) and (g) of
each of the Agreements is hereby amended to read ______(the age selected must be
the age to be attained not less than one (1) year after the date of this
Agreement); and


(b)  the
number of monthly installments in which deferred compensation shall be paid to
the Employee, or his or her beneficiary, as set forth in Section 5, subsections
(a), (c) and (d) of each of the Agreements is hereby amended to read
_________________ (insert “lump sum”, “36 months” or “60 months”).


2.  Except as
specifically provided herein, all of the terms and provisions of each of the
Agreements shall remain in force and effect.


**IN
WITNESS WHEREOF,** the
parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above
written.





STATE
      BANK OF LONG ISLANDBY:___________________________________________________________________________EMPLOYEE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22008]


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

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Privacy Act of 1974; Proposed New System of Records

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Correction; Privacy Act of 1974; Proposed New System of Records 
Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by The Privacy Act of 1974, the Merit Systems 
Protection Board published a notice in the Federal Register on Monday, 
August 4, 1997 (62 FR 41978) proposing to establish a new system of 
records entitled Workload and Assignment Tracking System. This notice 
corrects the wording of MSPB/INTERNAL-5, system of records notice as 
follows:

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
* * * * *
    b. Information concerning the nature of the assigned task, the 
dates of assignment, required completion and actual completion. The 
system may also contain notes and comments pertaining to the 
assignment.

PURPOSE:
    These records are used for internal assignment and tracking of 
workload and may also be used to monitor assignments to MSPB employees.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES 
OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
    a. To the General Accounting Office in response to an official 
inquiry or investigation;

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
    Electronic records in this system may be maintained for a period of 
five years, and then transferred to magnetic tape and maintained 
indefinitely, or until the Board no longer needs them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Michael H. Hoxie, Office of the Clerk of the Board, 202-653-7200.

    Dated: August 14, 1997.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-22008 Filed 8-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01
Exhibit 31.2
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Beacon Enterprise Solutions Group, 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 statement made, in light of the circumstances
under which 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(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)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   Date: August 16, 2010
    /s/ Michael GrendiMichael GrendiPrincipal Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELDER DE LOS SANTOS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 71235

Agency No. A201

- 906

- 319

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 10, 2022 * *

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and O ’ SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Elder Gudiel De Los Santos

- Perez, a native and ci tizen of

Guatemala, timely seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ ("BIA")

dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge ’ s ("IJ") denial of relief from

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

removal and the IJ ’ s entry of a final order of removal. Reviewing questions of law

de nov o, and reviewing for substantial evidence the agency ’ s factual findings,

Flores

- Rodriguez v. Garland , 8 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2021), we deny the

petition.

1. We decline to exercise our discretion to reach Petitioner ’ s arguments

pertaining to asylum. Petitioner forfeited the arguments by failing to raise them in

his opening brief. Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Contrary

to Petitioner ’ s contention in the reply brief, no manifest injustice results, and no

other exception to forf

eiture applies.

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA ’ s denial of withholding of

removal. The BIA permissibly concluded that Petitioner failed to show that the

government was unable or unwilling to control the persons who might harm him.

See Meza

- Va zquez v. Garland , 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) ("A

government ’ s inability or refusal to protect against persecution is a core

requirement for withholding of removal."). Neither the excerpt of the country

report cited by Petitioner nor any other evide nce in the record compels the

conclusion that the agency erred.

3. Substantial evidence likewise supports the agency ’ s denial of protection

under the Convention Against Torture. See B.R. v. Garland , 4 F.4th 783, 800

– 013

(9th Cir. 2021) (describing the pe titioner’s burden of establishing governmental

acquiescence when seeking relief under the Convention Against Torture).

4. We reject Petitioner ’ s argument that the IJ violated his right to due

process. We have carefully reviewed the record, and we see ne ither unfairness nor

substantial prejudice. See Rodriguez

- Jimenez v. Garland , 20 F.4th 434, 440 (9th

Cir. 2021) ("To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, an

alien must show error and substantial prejudice." (brackets omitted) ( citation

omitted)).

Petition DENIED.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries II, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Dated: January 13, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries II, Inc.
#### CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES v. CITY WIDE SANITATION CO.

No. 37974.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 214 So.2d 485.
#### Dorsett, Appellant, *v.*Tioga County.

*Costs*— Sherriff'sfees—Summoning *jurors*— Mileage—Acts *of April 14, 1834,*P- A- *333, and July 11, 1901, P.*A. *663.*

The sheriff of a county is not entitled to mileage for summoning jurors under the Act of July 11, 1901, P. L. 663.

Argued May 2, 1910.

Appeal, No. 268, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 132, for defendant on case stated in suit of Edward B. Dorsett v. Tioga County.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Action for mileage on a case stated. Before Ormerod, P. J., specially presiding.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Error assigned*was the judgment of the court for de- . fendant on case stated.

*E. H. Owlett*and *A. B. Dunsmore,*with them *Walter Sherwood,*for appellant.

*Robt. K. Young,*with him *Geo. W. Merrick*and *T. A. Crichton,*for appellee.

*629July 1, 1910:

Per Curiam,

This was a case stated to determine the liability of the county to the sheriff for mileage for summoning jurors. The duly of the sheriff to summon jurors and the manner of its performance are fixed by the Act of April 14, 1834, P. L. 333. The only provision for compensation for the service is found in the Act of July 11, 1901, P. L. 663, which regulates and establishes the fees to be charged by sheriffs. The first section of this act provides that sheriffs shall receive “For drawing juries for each general and special term or session of court, three dollars, in addition to one dollar for executing each venire, and thirty cents for summoning each juror to attend court, all of these fees to be paid by the county.” It is evident that under this provision mileage cannot be recovered. The contention of the appellant is that he is entitled to mileage under a later provision of the same section which is as follows: “For traveling expenses or mileage in serving or executing any of the writs, rules, orders, decrees, processes or performing any of the duties or services herein specified and intended so to be or authorized by law, the sheriff shall be entitled to receive and have taxed as costs ten cents a mile for each mile actually traveled and necessary, the same to be allowed in each separate writ, rule, order, decree, process or service performed; Provided, that he shall not receive more than one mileage, where the plaintiff and defendant, or plaintiffs and defendants, in two or more contemporaneous writs are the same.” If this provision stood alone it, perhaps, would not be a strained construction to hold that it covered mileage for summoning jurors. But taken, as it must be, in connection with the prior provision, which expressly fixes the charge for that service, and by implication excludes any other charge not mentioned, we are of opinion that it does not cover plaintiff’s claim for mileage.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned
Principle Accounting Officer of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 ( the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



         April 1, 2005                        /s/ JEFFREY JANCO
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Jeffrey Janco
                                              Principal Accounting Officer
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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries VI, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Dated: March 6, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries VI, Inc.