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

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

I, Allan Silber, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, of I-Link Incorporated;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         [Intentionallyomitted];

 

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(d)         Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:December 30, 2004

 

By:

/s/  Allan Silber

 

Allan Silber

 

  Chief Executive Officer
**Lisa Bonnett**  **Director Sincerely,**  **� �**  

### ILLINOIS **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**1021 NORTH**  **GRAND AVENUE**  **EAsr, p .0. Box**  **19276, SPRINGFIELD,**  **ILLINOIS 62794-9276**  **• (217)782-2829**  **PAT QUINN,**  **GOVERNOR LISA**  **BONNETT, DIRECTOR** 

**March 18,**  **2014**

**Dr. Susan**  **Hedman Regional**  **Administrator U.S.**  **EPA, Region**  **5 77**  **West Jackson**  **Boulevard Mail**  **Code RA-19J**  **Chicago, Illinois**  **60604-3590**

**Re: Old**  **American Zinc Site**  **Fairmont City/St.**  **Clair County** 

**Dear Dr.**  **Hedman:**
**Th e**  **State of** 

**Illinois supports**  **th e**  **preparation ofa**  **formal s**  **co r** **ing package**  **and the**  **addition of**  **the Old**  **A m** **e rican**  **Zinc S**  **ite to**  **the National**  **P riorit**  **ies List.** 

**T he**  **Sta te**  **ofillinois' ev**  **alu at**  **io n**  **of the**  **Old A**  **m erican**  **Zinc site,**  **located in**  **Fairmont City,**  **shows th**  **at past**  **disposal practices**  **on this**  **property h** **av e**  **resulted in**  **uncontrolled releases**  **of hazardous**  **substances that**  **p ose**  **unacceptable risks**  **to h** **uman health**  **and the**  **environment.**
**If you**  **have any**  **questions regarding**  **this correspondence,**  **please feel**  **free to**  **contact Mr.**  **Kurt Neibergall,**  **Acting Chief; B**  **ureau of L**  **and at**  **217/785-3819 or**  **kurt.neibergall@illinois.gov.**

**4302 N.**  **JJ.cin St.,**  **Rockford, ll**  **61103 (815)**  **987-7760 595**  **S. Sto1e,**  **Elgin, IL**  **60123 (847)**  **608-31 31**  **2125 S.**  **First St.,**  **01ompoign, IL**  **61820 (217)**  **278-5800 2009 /Aoll**  **St., Co!!insville,**  **!L 6223.:1**  **(618) 346-5120**  **951 1**  **Harrison St.,**  **Des Plaines,**  **ll 60016**  **(847) 294-4000**  **5407 N.**  **University St.,**  **Arbor 1**  **13, Peoria,**  **ll 61614**  **(309) 693-5462**  **2309 W.**  **Main St.,**  **Suite 1**  **16, Morion,**  **!L 62959**  **(618) 993-7200**  **100 W.**  **Rand ':>**  **lph, Suite**  **l 0-300,**  **Chicago, ll**  **6060 I**  **{312) 814-6026** 

**PLEASE PRINT ON**  **RECYaED ?**  **APER**
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Michael Carroll, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Date: October 2, 2006                            By: /s/ Michael Carroll
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Michael Carroll, Principal
                                                    Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. FREDRICK LAMAR SMITH, a/k/a Red Fred , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 7:03

- cr - 01094

- BHH

- 2; 7:16

- cv - 02563

- BHH )

Submitted : February 22 , 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Fredrick Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jeanne Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Gre enville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Fredrick Lamar Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not ap pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motio n states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick Bratton, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

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 quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

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

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal 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 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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: August 6, 2008



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick Bratton    
|    |  | Patrick Bratton        
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Interest of J.T.M., B.W., K.L.W., minor children, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1988.

*1075Denise Allen-Tunsil, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Eric J. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

The mother of three minor children appeals from an order, following adjudication of dependency, which suspended her visitation rights and required her to undergo psychological evaluation. Of the four issues raised on appeal, we reach the merits of only the one relating to psychological evaluation. With respect to that issue, we remand for further proceedings.

On 18 September 1987, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the children dependent. On 27 October 1987, an order was entered reaffirming the dependency adjudication and ordering placement of the children in the temporary custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for foster care placement. On 8 December 1987, the trial court entered an order requiring HRS to have a psychological evaluation done on the mother and suspending her visitation rights until approval by a therapist. Only the 8 December 1987 order was appealed.

The mother first challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the dependency petition and the sufficiency of the evidence in support thereof. She then argues that the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating the children dependent based on neglect. We do not reach these issues, however, because the dependency adjudication became final without an appeal.

As to the trial court’s requirement in the order appealed, that the mother undergo psychological evaluation, the state concedes that it was error to require the evaluation absent compliance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.750(b) as interpreted in *In the Interest of S.N,*529 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In *S.N.,*the order requiring the examination was quashed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings and receipt of additional evidence on the issue of good cause for an examination. Appellant argues that we should not remand in this case because *S.N.*was reviewed pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari, while this is a direct appeal. We have been offered no reason why this procedural distinction should make a difference, however, so we remand for further proceedings on the psychological examination question.

As the last issue raised on appeal, the mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating visitation. But in her statement of the case and facts in the initial brief, the mother states that the trial court reinstated visitation for one hour every other week, commencing 4 May 1988. The appellee has accepted the appellant’s statement of the case and facts. The challenge to the termination of visitation is therefore moot.

That part of the appealed order requiring psychological evaluation is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings.

ERVIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
#### Gayety Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case.

Argued December 15, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

*69Before Hulmán, J.

*Cecil. B. Moore,*for objector, appellant.

*Robert M. Borden,*with him *Alexander H. Borden,*for applicant, appellee.

*Russell C. Wismer,*Special Assistant Attorney General, with him *George G. Lindsay,*Assistant Attorney General, and *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, appellee.

January 16, 1962:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

The six Judges who heard the argument of this appeal being equally divided in opinion, the order of the. court below is affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94',~O=5_-:::::--;:~r?"nRn~r;:SJ

January 9,2 

Patricia S. Mariella, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Gila River Indian Community --­ Post Office Box 97 

Sacaton, AZ 85247 

Dear~la:

This is in~se to your letter of April 20, 2001, requesting that EPA recognize the 

Community's ability to issue permits that are practicably enforceable to limit a permittee's 

potential emissions. After reviewing this case and discussing the facts with EPA Headquarters, 

and after many years of working closely with the Gila River Department of Environmental 

Quality, we agree that the Community has the capacity to provide enforceable limits. 

As you know, EPA's existing Potential to Emit (PTE) Transition Policy for Part 71 

Implementation in Indian Country (memo dated March 7,1999) requires an EPA-approved Clean 

Air Act program such as a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) in order to create synthetic minor 

sources. Meanwhile, EPA policy allows states (memo dated July 10, 1998) to limit PTE using 

programs that are not federally enforceable, such as state-only permit programs. 

You point out in your letter that the Community has a mature environmental program and tribal 

court system, that you have been conducting environmental inspections and enforcement for 

years, including issuing NOVs and collecting penalties, and that your capacity in this area rivals 

many local air pollution control agencies. We are also aware that you are developing a 

comprehensive TIP. Your letter argued that the Gila River Indian Community should be able to 

operate under the state PTE policy, and we agree. 

Therefore, in the future when your program intends to provide synthetic minor status to a specific 

source on the Reservation, please submit the following: 

- updated information about your tribal court system and enforcement program; 

- detailed information about the source; and 

- copies of the applicable regulations and/or permit. 

EPA will review the documentation and work with your staff to ensure that you have provided 

sufficient justification, in this case, for EPA to recognize a tribal PTE limit that does not stem 

from an EPA-approved program. 
Thank you for your patience. We look forward to continuing our productive relationship as we 

work together to protect tribal air resources. If you have any questions, please call Gerardo Rios, 

Air Pennits Office Chief, at 415-972-3974, or Doug McDaniel, Air Division Tribal Team 

Leader, at 415-947-4106. 

Sincerely, 

J k P. Broadbent 

irector, Air Division 

Daniel Blair, GRIC DEQJ
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners, L.P., Series B
<CIK>                         0000849278

       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            73,935
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,025,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                      59,278
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                     0
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,143,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                               0 
<BONDS>                                          589,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                       416,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,143,670
<SALES>                                          363,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 400,618
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  95,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (36,892)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                77,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     263,893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.31
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 39 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 39

Commending June Ellenoff O'Neill for her service to Congress and to the 
                                Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1999

 Mr. Domenici (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Commending June Ellenoff O'Neill for her service to Congress and to the 
                                Nation.

Whereas Dr. June Ellenoff O'Neill has served as the Director of the 
        Congressional Budget Office since March of 1995;
Whereas she previously served in that office in its early years from 1976 to 
        1979 as the Chief of the Human Resources Cost Estimates Unit and has 
        held numerous positions within the Executive Branch of the Federal 
        Government, within academia, and at respected private research 
        institutions;
Whereas she has been recognized as a leader within the economics profession by 
        her election as Vice President of the American Economics Association and 
        has been published in numerous books, monographs, and articles 
        addressing important issues of public policy and economics;
Whereas during her tenure as Director, an unprecedented period that saw budget 
        deficits turning to surpluses, she has continued to encourage the 
        highest standards of analytical excellence within the staff of the 
        Congressional Budget Office while maintaining the independent and 
        nonpartisan character of the organization;
Whereas she has improved and expanded Congress and the general public's access 
        to the Congressional Budget Office's work product by establishing a web 
        site for the organization;
Whereas she has actively promoted the importance of a budget process to a 
        democratic society by participating in and encouraging her staff to 
        participate in educational and foreign exchange programs;
Whereas she has performed her duties as Director with courage, grace, and 
        intelligence; and
Whereas she has earned the respect and esteem of the United States Senate: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate of the United States commends Dr. June 
Ellenoff O'Neill for her dedicated, faithful, and outstanding service 
to her country and to the Senate.
                                 <all>
```