alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, R. Don Morris, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report (the Report) on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;  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-14 and 15d-14) 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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.  Date:9/14/07By:/s/R. Don MorrisR. Don MorrisPresident and Director
Exhibit 32.2



Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b)
or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of NGP Capital Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L. Scott Biar, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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
                                                                operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	November 7, 2013



| | /s/ L. Scott Biar                                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | L. Scott Biar                                                              
| | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary  and Chief Compliance Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1133 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1133

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities relating 
   to the collective bargaining of employees in the Veterans Health 
                            Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2019

Mr. Takano (for himself, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Khanna, 
 Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Higgins of New York, Ms. Norton, Mr. Schiff, Ms. 
 Wilson of Florida, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Rush, Mr. McGovern, Miss Rice of 
  New York, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Hill of California, Ms. 
     Lofgren, Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Judy Chu of 
 California, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. 
Grijalva, Ms. Jayapal, and Mr. Carbajal) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities relating 
   to the collective bargaining of employees in the Veterans Health 
                            Administration.

    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 ``VA Employee Fairness Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF 
              EMPLOYEES OF THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

    Section 7422 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
Order entered August 1 5 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00629
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF S .C. AND K.C., CHILDR EN On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Cou rt

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 11
- 16417



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 1 5 , 2018 amended motion to abate the appeal

. Appellant seeks the abatement because the trial court has not filed findings of fact and conclusions of l aw despite a proper request under the rules of civil procedure . Appellant also asks the Court to provide the parties with additional time to seek additional and/or amended findings once the trial court has filed its findings and to set a deadline by which the trial court must file any such additional or amended findings. We GRANT the motion as follows

. We ORDER the Honorable David Lopez , Presiding Judge of the 256 th Judicial District Court, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance wi th Texas Family Code section 153.258(a) and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297 no later than September 4, 2018 . The findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this
Court no later than September 7 , 2018

. We further ORDER any request for specified additional or amended findings or conclusions be made by September 12, 2018 and any additional oramended findings and conclusions be filed by September 18, 2018. Any additional or amended

findings and conclusions shall be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court no later than September 21, 2018.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to Judge Lopez , Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, and all counsel of record.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court an opportunity to comply with this order. The appeal will be reinstated no later than September 27, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1934

NARDEV SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William H. Berger, BERGER AND BERGER, Buffalo, New York, for 

Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Jeremy 

M. Bylund, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nardev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) 

dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision 

finding him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) 

(2012). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude 

that the agency properly determined that Singh is removable from 

the United States as an alien who failed or refused to fulfill 

the marital agreement that was made for the purpose of procuring 

his admission as an immigrant. See § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii). We 

further conclude that substantial evidence supports the adverse 

credibility finding, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 

(4th Cir. 2006), and that Singh cannot demonstrate a violation 

of his due process rights as he fails to show the requisite 

prejudice. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 

2008).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. July 22, 

2015). 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.

PETITION DENIED
10-K
|                                          |   | STATE                OF       |   |                                          |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   |  INCORPORATION           |   | RELATIONSHIP                                  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| BNA Holdings, Inc.                       |   | Delaware                 |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| BNA International, Inc.                       |   | Delaware                 |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| BNA Washington, Inc.                          |   | Delaware                 |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| Institute of Management                       |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| and                Administration, Inc.  |   | New                York  |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| Kennedy Information, Inc.                |   | Delaware                 |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| The McArdle  Printing Co., Inc.     |   | Delaware                 |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| STF Services Corporation                 |   | New                York  |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |
|                                          |   |                          |   |                                          |   |
| Tax Management, Inc.                |   | Delaware                 |   | 100%                Owned by Registrant  |   |

----
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven Johnston, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Douglas Lake Minerals 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 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 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 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

(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:  December 21, 2004 | /s/ Steven JohnstonSteven Johnston
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

Independent Auditors' Consent

The
Board of Directors
Tom Brown, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos. 33-42991, 33-60191, 33-60842, 333-13157, 333-30069, 333-42011, 333-56577, 333-69353, 333-89031,
333-89033, 333-31426, 333-51320, 333-57814 and 333-74268 on Form S-8 of Tom Brown, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Tom
Brown, Inc. as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the
December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Tom Brown, Inc.

KPMG
LLP
Denver, Colorado
August 1, 2003

---
#### LOGAN CITY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Craig CARLSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 15739.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 28, 1978.

David Craig Carlsen, pro se.

J. Blaine Zollinger, Logan City Atty., Logan, for plaintiff and respondent.

HALL, Justice:

Defendant, David Craig Carlsen (“Carl-sen”), appeals his traffic offense conviction of “following too close” in violation of Section 42-8-8 of the Revised Ordinance of Logan City, 1969, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

> (a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the conditions of the street.

Carlsen tyas initially tried and convicted of said offense in the Logan City Court. He thereafter sought and obtained a trial de novo1 in the First District Court and it is from his conviction there that this appeal stems.

Two points are raised on appeal: (1) that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of the type of driv*450ing that is forbidden, and (2) that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conviction.

It is well recognized in the law that one may not be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.2 However, the ordinance in question does not violate that principle. It prescribes a readily understandable standard of conduct, viz., that a person driving a vehicle cannot follow another vehicle “. . . more closely than is reasonable or prudent having regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the conditions of the street.”

We hold that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague and that it adequately informs the operators of motor vehicles of the kind of conduct that is forbidden. This holding is consistent with the holdings of our sister state jurisdictions which have been called upon to construe similar enactments which establish driving standards in “reasonable and prudent” terms.3

The second point on appeal, that of insufficiency of the evidence, presents a matter that is not appealable to this Court. Appeals from justice or city courts lie only to the District Courts and the decision there is final, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of an ordinance.4

Affirmed.

ELLETT, C. J, and CROCKETT, J., concur.

MAUGHAN and WILKINS, JJ., concur in result.

1

. Provided for by Article VIII, Section 9, Constitution of Utah and U.C.A., 1953, 78-3-5.

2

. *United States v. Harriss,*347 U.S. 612, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed.2d 989 (1954).

3

. *State*v. *Bush,*182 N.E.2d 43 (Ohio, 1962); *People*v. *Heid,*50 Misc.2d 409, 270 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y.1966); *People v. DeCasaus,*150 Cal.App.2d 274, 309 P.2d 835 (1957); *Smith v. State,*237 So.2d 139 (Fla.1970).

4

. Article VIII, Section 9, Constitution of Utah.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

MARQUISE P. WALIYYUDDIN,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 625 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 14-1171V 

Filed: March 24, 2015 

Not for Publication 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

RONALD GORDON, * 

 * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

 * Influenza Vaccine (“Flu”); 

v. * Shoulder Injury Related to 

 * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); 

 * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Tara O’Mahoney, Law Offices of Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, for 

petitioner. 

Julia McInerny, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master: 

 On December 5, 2014, Ronald Gordon filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of a seasonal 

influenza (“flu”) vaccination on December 12, 2012, petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration [“SIRVA”]. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be 

posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006). 
2

On March 20, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [“Respondent’s 

Report”], in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. 

Respondent’s Report at 4. Specifically, respondent submits that “based on the record 

as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 

the Vaccine Act.” Id. 

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

 s/Denise K. Vowell 

 Denise K. Vowell 

 Chief Special Master