alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Gunther Than, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of View Systems, 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 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.     Date: March 23, 2007 /s/ Gunther Than Gunther Than, Chief Executive Officer    Exhibit 31.2
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

lUCK PERRY 

GOVERNOR 

June 24, 2011 

Alfredo "AI" Armendariz, Ph.D. 


Regional Administrator 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 


1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 


Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 


RE: 	 Proposed Listing of the US Oil Recovery Site on the federal National Priorities List 

Dear Dr. Armendariz: 

Texas supports the decision that the US Oil Recovery site be considered as a candidate site for 

the federal National Priorities List (NPL) for cleanup. 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality believes that this site is eligible for the 

proposed NPL listing based on agency evaluation of the site under the federal Hazard Ranking 

System. 

~~J Rick Perry 


Governor 


RP:tbp 

cc: 	 Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman, TCEQ 

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director, TCEQ 

Mr. John Sadlier, Deputy Director, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, TCEQ 

Mr. Brent Wade, Director, Remediation Division, TCEQ 

Mr. Sam Coleman, Superfund Division Director, EPA 

Ms. Wren Stenger, Superfund Associate Director, EPA 

Mr. John Meyer, Chief Risk and Site Assessment, EPA 

Ms. Brenda Nixon Cook, Region 6, NPL Coordinator, EPA 

PosT OmcE Box 12428 Ausrm, TEXAS 78711 (512)463-2000 (VorCE)/DIAL 7-1-1 FOR RELAY SERVICES 

VISIT www.TEXAsONUNE.COM 1HE OFFiciAL WEB Srrn OF THE STAlE OF TEXAS
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, William Whittle, President, CEO and CFO of General Gold Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of General Gold Corporation for the nine month period ended January 31, 2005 (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 General Gold Corporation.

Dated: April 22, 2005
| /s/ William Whittle |
|---------------------|

William Whittle

President, CEO and CFO (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Reporting Officer)
#### Ethel Lee BRYANT and Clyde Bryant, Petitioners, v. The Honorable George W. TEDDER and the Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan, Circuit Judges of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Respondents.

No. 78-85.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1978.

*380E. Hugh Chappell, Jr. of McCrory, Chap-pell, Brandt & Gore, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondents.

George E. Bunnell of Bunnell, Knight & Graham, and Nancy Little Hoffmann, Fort Lauderdale, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The issue involved in this cause is exactly the same as was decided in *Morales v. Moore,*356 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, we hereby exercise our discretion to treat the suggestion for writ of prohibition as a petition for writ of certiora-ri. For the reasons set out in *Morales,*the petition is granted; and the order denying the petitioner’s motion to strike is quashed, with directions that an order be entered excluding podiatrists from the list of prospective members of the medical mediation panel.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 186 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 186

   To prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds for any study 
related to the transportation of chemical munitions across State lines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

 Mr. Allard (for himself, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Shelby, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
  Bunning, and Mr. Sarbanes) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds for any study 
related to the transportation of chemical munitions across State lines.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS FOR STUDY 
              OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF CHEMICAL MUNITIONS.

    Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be obligated 
or expended for any study related to the transportation of chemical 
munitions across State boundaries.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Ju ly 3 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk Ju ly 3 , 2019

15 9 510 ( 46 )

159511

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

, SC: 15 9 510, 159511

v COA: 3 4 0871, 341589

Midland CC: 13

- 009864

- CK

M.A.P. MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, and

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY

, Defendant s

- Appell ees

.

__________________________________ ______ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out

- of

state attorney Patrick J. Wielinski to appear and practice in this case under MCR 8.126(A)

is GRANTED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135659 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135659 

 COA: 269813 

Kent CC: 05-006876-FC 

BONNIE LOU SAVOY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0317 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”)of Medical Capital Management, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2003, I, Sidney M. Field, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,****that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date:  March 29, 2004 | /s/  Sidney M. Field |                                 |
|---------------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                            |                 | Sidney M.  Field                     |
|                            |                 | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |
|                            |                 | Medical  Capital Management, Inc.    |
|                                 |                      |                                      |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Organization, Functions, and Authority Delegations: Pre-Merger 
Notification Unit; Relocation

AGENCY: Pre-Merger Notification Unit/FTC Liaison Office (Pre-Merger 
Notification Unit).

ACTION: Notice of relocation.

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

SUMMARY: The Pre-Merger Notification Office will be relocating from: 
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Pre-Merger Notification 
Unit, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room #3218, Washington, DC 20530.
    Effective September 5, 1997 the new address will be: Department of 
Justice, Antitrust Division, Pre-Merger Notification Unit, Patrick 
Henry Building, 601 D St., NW, Room #10-013, Washington, DC 20530.
    Do Not Use the 20530 Zip Code for FedEx Airbills. For FedEx 
airbills, use the above address information, using the zip code 20004. 
The use of the 20530 zip code will result in a delay of the delivery of 
FedEx packages to our office.
    Delivery of Pre-Merger Notification & Report Forms and other 
materials to the Pre-Merger Unit will be similar to current procedures 
in place at the Main Justice Building.
    All telephone numbers will remain unchanged.

DATES: Effective September 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Pre-Merger 
Notification Unit, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D St., NW, Room #10-013, 
Washington, DC 20530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elaine M. Gibbs or Renata Dean at (202) 514-2558.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-22877 Filed 8-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. Neville Glenn ORRETT.

No. 61469.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 9, 1978.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SURRENDER LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW AND TO HAVE STRICKEN HIS NAME FROM THE ROLLS OF ATTORNEYS FOR THE PERIOD OF NINETY (90) DAYS SUSPENSION ON CONSENT

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

The Petition of Neville Glenn Orrett, Respondent herein, appearing herein personally and through Milton P. Masinter and Joseph McMahon, his Attorneys, with respect represents.

I.

That Neville Glenn Orrett was admitted to practice law in the State of Louisiana before this Honorable Court in February, 1973.

II.

That Neville Glenn Orrett was convicted of a misdemeanor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, all as set forth in the attached Bill of Information and Judgment and Commitment Order attached hereto and made a part hereof.

III.

That Neville Glenn Orrett acknowledges that his said conviction is now final, he having pleaded guilty on October 3,1977, to a violation of 14 La.RS. 120 and Title 18 United States Code, § 13 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, Corrupt Influence.

IV.

That Neville Glenn Orrett respectfully suggests that as this Court held in the case of *Louisiana State Bar Association v. Ponder,*La., 340 So.2d 134 (1976), a ninety (90) day suspension from the practice of law is appropriate discipline for the activity which resulted in Mr. Orrett’s conviction.

V.

Neville Glenn Orrett herein petitions this Court for leave to surrender his license to practice law for a period of ninety (90) days, commencing on the date of this Court’s Order.

VI.

Neville Glenn Orrett acknowledges and declares that his suspension on consent is freely and voluntarily submitted; it is not the result of coercion or duress and Neville Glenn Orrett is fully aware of the implications of his suspension.

WHEREFORE, Neville Glenn Orrett prays that he be allowed to surrender his *254license and that same be revoked and can-celled and, further, that his name be stricken from the rolls of attorneys authorized to practice law in the State of Louisiana, all for the limited period of ninety (90) days from date of this Court’s Order, thus resulting in his suspension for that period by his own consent.

ORDER

The foregoing Petition, the premises, and the law considered:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

That Neville Glenn Orrett be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the State of Louisiana for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.

/s/ JOE W. SANDERS Chief Justice

/s/ FRANK W. SUMMERS Associate Justice

/s/ ALBERT TATE. JR. Associate Justice

/s/ PASCAL F. CALOGERO. JR. Associate Justice

/s/ WALTER F. MARCUS. JR. Associate Justice

DENNIS, J.,

is of the opinion that upon the record before us, which presents none of the factual circumstances surrounding petitioner’s commission of the offense of corrupt influence, a more severe penalty would be appropriate.
Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of RB Rubber Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Overturf, 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/DONALD OVERTURFDonald Overturf Chief Financial OfficerRB Rubber Products, Inc.
August 22, 2002 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Catahoula

 National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ded by

hy’s Scuba Adventures

USFWS Photo

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

CatahoulaNational Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Catahoula National Wildlife RefugeUSFWS Photo
dance for

ategies

sh and

ns detail

bove

ervice

e plans

ational

uisition.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1645 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1645

   To establish a first responder interoperable communications grant 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 2005

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish a first responder interoperable communications grant 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``First Responders Interoperable 
Communications Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNICATION SYSTEM GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized 
to make grants, on a competitive basis, to States, local governments, 
local law enforcement agencies, and local fire departments to assist 
in--
            (1) improving communication systems to allow for real-time, 
        interoperable communication between State and local first 
        responders; or
            (2) the purchase of communication systems that allow for 
        real-time, interoperable communication between such State and 
        local first responders.
    (b) Application.--Any State, local government, local law 
enforcement agency, or local fire department that desires to receive a 
grant under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the 
Secretary, in such form and containing such information as prescribed 
by the Secretary.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $300,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to 
carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,775-03

EX PARTE WILLIAM SOLOMON LEWIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1219699-A IN THE 338 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should
Lewis - 2

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
#### Hugh T. BRAMLETTE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Audrey PAXTON, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 2818.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Oct. 30, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1969.

C. Kenneth Deshotel, Opelousas, for defendant-appellant.

Sandoz, Sandoz & Schiff, by Lawrence B. Sandoz, Jr., Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before TATE, HOOD and CULPEP-PER, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case, entitled “Audrey Paxton v. Hugh T. Bramlette”, 228 So.2d 161, in which a separate decision is rendered by us this date, the judgment appealed in the present matter is affirmed insofar as it rejects the demands of Hugh T. Bramlette for restitution of his separate and paraphernal funds. All rights are reserved to both plaintiff and defendant to seek a partition and settlement of the community formerly existing between them. All costs in the lower court, as well as the cost of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff appellant.

Affirmed, as amended.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.