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

CERTIFICATION

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Perry Law, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc.;



2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 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 control 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case

of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the

registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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

over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to

record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(a)

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.







/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Executive Officer



November 12, 2007
# C_2021391EN.01001802.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2021 — Aloe Vera of Europe v Commission

(Case T-189/21 R)

(Interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 - Substances prohibited, restricted or under Community scrutiny - Regulation (EU) 2021/468 - Prohibition of preparations from the leaf of Aloe species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 391/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aloe Vera of Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Van Vooren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Farrell and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (OJ 2021 L 96, p. 6), for a period of nine months from the date of the present order.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### Catherine Dan et al., Appellants, v Noel A. Luke et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 366]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 23, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, who predicated their motion upon, *inter alia,*plaintiff s bill of particulars and various X-ray, MRI and other reports prepared and signed by plaintiff’s treating physicians *(see, Deangelo v Marcia Serv. Corp.,*199 AD2d 58). These submissions established that there is no merit to plaintiffs claim of "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955; *Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017). Moreover, the court properly determined that plaintiffs letter and a report prepared by two of plaintiffs treating physicians were inadmissible because they were unsworn and had not been affirmed *(see,*CPLR 2106; *McLoyrd v Pennypacker,*178 AD2d 227, *lv denied*79 NY2d 754). In any event, these documents do not demonstrate that plaintiff suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of section 5102 (d). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.
#### George CURTIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44500.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 24, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 514.

CARLTON, C. J:, and ROBERTS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
#### Reginald M. WISE et al., Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellees.

No. 72-789.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Thomas Bruce REESE, Appellee.

Nos. 71-77, 71-78.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 2, 1971.

James T. Russell, State’s Atty., and F. M. Wells, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., Clearwater, for appellant.

Terry Furnell, of Donahey & Furnell, Clearwater, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of State v. McCloud (Fla.1953), 67 So.2d 242.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
APPENDIX O 

OHIO AND INDIANA AND 

WEST VIRGINIA 

 SUBMITTALS 
Links to other border states of interest: 

Ohio http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/ 

 

Indiana http://www.in.gov/idem/index.htm 

West Virginia http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=8
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000]

The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) along with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will meet with representatives of the Yurok Tribe to discuss the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:

Yurok Tribe—Klamath Administrative Office, 190 Klamath Boulevard, Klamath, CA 95548, Phone: (707) 482-1350, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. PDT

Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding may attend and observe this meeting; however, participation will be limited to tribal representatives and agency personnel. If tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into the Commission's administrative record.

                    If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact Mr. John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager at (202) 502-6352 or                     *John.Peconom@ferc.gov.*

Dated: July 10, 2018.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15125 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 23.1   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-49837, No. 333-44436 and No. 333-101962 on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 25, 2007 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) Share-Based Payment), and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. for the year ended March 30, 2007.  /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP  San Jose, California May 25, 2007
#### Robert G. JODWAY, et al. v. Jack A. BAXTER.

No. 38792.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 398.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 511 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 511

    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a 
    rollcall vote on passage of any measure making appropriations, 
  providing revenue, or increasing the statutory limit on the public 
                 debt, and in certain other instances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 8, 1994

Mr. Santorum submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a 
    rollcall vote on passage of any measure making appropriations, 
  providing revenue, or increasing the statutory limit on the public 
                 debt, and in certain other instances.

    Resolved, That (a) this resolutuion may be cited as the 
``Taxpayers' Right to Know Resolution''.
    (b) Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended 
by inserting at the end the following new clause:
    ``7. (a) It shall not be in order in the House or in the Committee 
of the Whole to pass or adopt, as the case may be, any bill or joint 
resolution, or conference report thereon, described in paragraph (c) 
except by rollcall vote, a quorum being present, and the yeas and nays 
shall be considered as ordered.
    ``(b) It shall not be in order in any committee to order reported 
any bill or joint resolution described in subparagraph (c) except by 
rollcall vote, approved by a majority of the members voting, a quorum 
being present.
    ``(c) Subparagraphs (a) and (b) apply to bills and joint 
resolutions that--
            ``(1) make or continue an appropriation;
            ``(2) increase the statutory limit on the public debt;
            ``(3) amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
        Control Act of 1974 or the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act of 1985 or change the congressional budget 
        process;
            ``(4) provide revenue;
            ``(5) establish, extend, or raise any user fee; or
            ``(6) authorize the enactment of new budget authority.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 1 5

- 01331 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ( December 29 , 201 5 )

Having carefully considered pro se Plaintiff s ’ [ 21 ] Motion for Reconsideration under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) , the Court concludes that Plaintiff s have provided no
basis for the Court to alter or amend the judgment issued in this case on December 4, 2015.

Motions under Rule 59(e) are “disfavored” and the moving party bears the burden of establishing “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from a final judgment. Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus , 153 F.Supp.2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2001). Rule 59(e) motions are “discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone , 76 F.3d 1205, 1 208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 59(e) does not provide a vehicle “to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

, 554 U.S. 47 1, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995)).
Rule 60(b) allows the Court, on motion or on just terms, to relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake, in advertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrep resentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitabl e; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears

the burden of proof to show that he or she is entitled to the relief. Norris v. Salazar , 277 F.R.D. 22, 25 (D.D.C. 2011). “[T]he decision to grant or deny a rule 60(b) motion is committed to the

discretion of the District Court.” United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co. , 984 F.2d 469, 476 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In exercising this discretion, the Court “must bala nce the interest in justice with the interest in protecting the finality of judgments.” Summers v. Howard Univ.

, 374 F.3d 1188, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

EDDIE WISE

, et al.

, Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES

, et al.

, Defendants2 Here, Plaintiff s have not met their burden of showing any of the circumstances that would

warrant relief from a final judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Accordingly, for the

reasons stated in the Court’s [20] Memorandum Opinion dated December 4, 2015

— which the Court fully incorporates and makes part of this Or der

— the Court DENIES Plaintiffs ’ [21]

M otion for Reconsideration.

/s/

COLLEEN KOLLAR

- KOTELLY United States District Judge
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2015

No. 04-14-00663-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.,JR., a child,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02667

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The brief is 

deemed filed.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Richard Dinerman, Respondent, v Joseph Poehlman, Defendant, and City of New York, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 41]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for the wrongful issuance of a building permit, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated January 19, 1996, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to dismiss the affirmative defense of governmental immunity and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint and the cross claim insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to dismiss the defense of governmental immunity is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint and cross claim are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The plaintiff asserts in his complaint that the defendant City of New York wrongly issued a building permit to his neighbor, permitting the construction of a garage which did not comply with the applicable zoning laws. Whether to grant a building permit "is a discretionary determination and the actions of the government in such instances are immune from lawsuits” *(City of New York v 17 Vista Assocs.,*84 NY2d 299, 307; *see, Arteaga v State of New York,*72 NY2d 212, 217; *Tarter v State of New*
      *484
      *York,*68 NY2d 511; *Tango v Tulevech,*61 NY2d 34, 40; *Rottkamp v Young,*15 NY2d 831, *affg*21 AD2d 373, *for reasons stated at App Div).*Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Global Clean Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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






April
      15, 2009/s/
      John GrobJohn
      GrobPresident
              Principal
      Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and University of Hawaii 
Research Internship Program.
    OMB Control Number: 0648-0719.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved 
information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 80.
    Average Hours per Response: 1 hour or less, for each application, 
reference letter and support letter.
    Burden Hours: 80.
    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently 
approved information collection.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) 
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument (PMNM) would 
like to collect student data and information for the purposes of 
selecting candidates for its research internship program in partnership 
with the University of Hawaii. The application package would contain: 
(1) A form requesting information on academic background and 
professional experiences, (2) reference forms in support of the 
internship application by two educational or professional references, 
and (3) a support letter from one academic professor or advisor.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: One time.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. 
Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections 
currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#541b1d06150b072136393d27273d3b3a143b39367a313b247a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b3432293a24280e19161208081214153b141619551e140b551c140d">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: July 8, 2018.
Sarah Brabson,
NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-14889 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### KABET v. STEVENSON.

No. 6158.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 26, 1937.

Carl E. dock, T. W. Pomeroy, Jr., and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Harold E. McCamey, Charles A. Woods, Jr., and Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The facts are set forth in our prior opinion in which we directed that the right of Dr. Stevenson to a set-off and counterclaim be determined by a jury. Stevenson v. Ruth (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 501.

On the second trial the right to a set-off was conceded. The only issue left for the jury to determine, therefore, was whether the stock pledged by Dr. Stevenson as collateral was sold by the receiver of the bank without notice to him and for less than its fair market value in a manner which amounted to a lack of due diligence on the part of the bank as pledgee. The jury by its verdict upon proper instructions by the learned trial judge found that the pledgee did not exercise due diligence and care in disposing of the collateral. There was sufficient evidence to sustain this finding.

We are not impressed by the appellant’s contention that the pleadings were insufficient to permit the admission of the evidence submitted on behalf of the appellee.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.