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

I, James Durward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UNITECH ENERGY CORP.;

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 statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such 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 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 quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  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  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 28, 2005
/s/ James Durward
------------------------
By: James Durward, CEO
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,  in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  in his
capacity as an officer of the BFA Liquidation Trust (the "TRUST"),  that, to his
knowledge,  the Quarterly  Report of the Trust on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information
contained  in  such  report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operation of the Trust.

Date: May 13, 2003                      By: /s/ Clifton R. Jessup, Jr.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Clifton R. Jessup, Jr.
                                        Title: Liquidating Trustee

Date: May 13, 2003                      By: /s/ Mark A. Roberts
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Mark A. Roberts
                                        Title: Assistant to the Liquidating
                                               Trustee
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5133 September Term, 2023

1:23-cv-01272-UNA

Filed On: October 13, 2023

Bobby E. Hazel,

Appellant

v.

United States of America,

Appellee

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

Consolidated with 23-5156

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Wilkins, Katsas, and Walker, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to

appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases,

appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated

sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 18, 2023

and June 6, 2023 orders be affirmed. The district court did not err by dismissing

appellant’s constitutional tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)

because they are barred by sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,

478 (1994). The district court also did not err by concluding that the United States has

not waived immunity for appellant’s emotional distress claims under the FTCA because

the government would not be liable to the claimant “as a private person” for refusing or
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5133 September Term, 2023

failing to disclose a videotape as exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83 (1963), or under the Freedom of Information Act. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at

477–78. Further, to the extent appellant attempted to raise claims pursuant to Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 403 U.S. 388

(1971), these claims fail because the United States is not a proper Bivens defendant. 

See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484–86. To the extent appellant argues that he should have

been permitted to amend his Bivens claims to add individual defendants, he has

forfeited that argument by not raising it in the district court. See Keepseagle v. Perdue,

856 F.3d 1039, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Finally, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying reconsideration of its dismissal order, see Firestone v. Firestone,

76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996), because the government’s acknowledgment of an

administrative tort complaint under the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity, see

GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 904–05 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the 
duration of today's session: Dan West, Micah Scudder, and Heather 
Sykes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________
```
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of DirectorsIPC
Holdings, Ltd.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 of IPC
Holdings, Ltd. of our report dated January 30, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of IPC Holdings, Ltd. as
of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income (loss), comprehensive income, changes in
shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended December 31, 2003, and all related
financial statement schedules, which report appears in the
December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of IPC
Holdings, Ltd.

/s/ KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Hamilton, Bermuda
February 27, 2004
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 29, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage*                    ®                     *& Parcel Select Contract 2 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-133, CP2024-139.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28731 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Norton Operating Services, Inc., Appellant, v Iris Perry, Respondent.

— In an action to recover upon two promissory notes, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), dated May 15, 1989, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced the instant lawsuit to collect payment of two promissory notes executed by the defendant and her former husband. The notes in question were executed and delivered on April 29, 1985 (face amount of $15,000), and June 19, 1985 (face amount of $55,000), respectively; both notes are payable on demand with interest at 11.47% per annum. The record indicates that the money borrowed by the defendant and her ex-husband was deposited into the account of a corporation which operated a liquor store. According to the defendant, the liquor business was owned 100% by her ex-husband, and she never received any benefit from the money that was loaned by the plaintiff.

In the papers submitted before the Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the notes are void as to her because she had been physically abused by her ex-husband and coerced by him into signing them. She alleged that Michael Kiosk, president of the plaintiff corporation and her ex-husband’s cousin, was aware that she had been beaten in the past and that she had been threatened with further abuse in the future if she did not cosign the notes for the money he (Kiosk) was lending solely for the benefit of his cousin’s business.

Mr. Kiosk denied knowing that the defendant’s former *917husband had physically abused her at the time the notes were executed. In any event, he argued that the defendant had waived the defense of duress because of her failure to raise it timely, and by making partial payments on the notes. The Supreme Court held that the duress defense has been sufficiently raised so as to preclude summary judgment on the complaint. We now affirm.

The record does not support the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant waived the defense of duress as a matter of law. The defendant made a single $75 payment several months after receiving a formal written demand for repayment from the plaintiff’s lawyers. However, we cannot conclude from this record that the defendant was no longer under duress at the time the one payment was made. Moreover, the allegations of physical coercion, if proven, would constitute a complete defense and render the notes unenforceable as against the defendant *(cf.,*UCC 3-305 [2] [b], comment 6; *Loomis v Ruck,*56 NY 462). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8, previously filed by NB&T Financial Group, Inc. on March 23, 1995 and April 19, 2006, of our report dated March 15, 2011 on our audit of the consolidatedfinancial statements of NB&T Financial Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, which report and financial statements are contained in the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. 

/s/ BKD, LLP 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

March 15, 2011 

 
90
# C_2009032EN.01001702.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/17

---

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-495/08)

(2009/C 32/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by
  failing to provide that individual decisions not to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended must be supported by sufficient reasoning, and
  failing to make ROMP applications lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of that Directive,
  the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by

failing to provide that individual decisions not to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended must be supported by sufficient reasoning, and

1

failing to make ROMP applications lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of that Directive,

the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

| 2. | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the United Kingdom legislation reasons must be given only if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is found to be necessary: if, for whatever reason, the relevant planning authority or the Secretary of State reaches the conclusion that no EIA is necessary, then nothing in the Regulations requires any reasons to be given in support of that conclusion. The Commission submits that individual decisions taken by Member States not to carry out an EIA pursuant to Article 4(2) to (4) of the directive must be supported by adequate reasoning.

Furthermore, the United Kingdom has not enacted legislation in Wales which would make Review of Mineral Planning (‘ROMP’) applications subject to the requirements of the directive.

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, p. 40).

1

---
# C_2010209EN.01003501.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2010 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)

(Case T-482/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ATLAS TRANSPORT - Genuine use of the trade mark - Articles 15 and 50(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 209/51

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and S. Schäffner, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany) (represented by C. Drews, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2008 (Case R 1858/2007-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Alfred Hartmann and Atlas Transport GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 September 2008 in Case R 1858/2007-4; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 September 2008 in Case R 1858/2007-4;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Atlas Transport GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Atlas Transport GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Alfred Hartmann to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alfred Hartmann to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: November 8, 2010/s/ William M. Caldwell, IV


William M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
3355 Lenox Road | Suite 750 | Atlanta, GA 303 26 | phone: 404.601.1100
www.solusiaair.com 1 October	1,	2015 **Electronic	Submission** U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	W12

- 140 1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE Washington,	DC	20590 RE:	Request	for	Amendment	to Exemption No. 11216 issued to Solusia Air, LLC Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0912

- 0002) Dear	Sir	or	Madam: Solusia	Air,	LLC		(“Solusia”)	was	issued	Exemption	No.	11216	on	March	20,	2015,	allowing commercial	operation	of	UAS	to	conduct	aerial	inspections	of	uti lity	and	vertical	structures. Solusia	herby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to	allow	it	to	use	additional airframes	of	unmanned	aircraft	systems	(UAS)	under	the	same	terms	and	conditions contained	in	the	Exemption. In	support	of	this	amendment,	So lusia	Air	requests	that	all	of the	documents,	submitted	in	support	of	Exemption	11216,	be	considered	in	the	FAA’s review	of	this	amendment	request. The	additional	airframes	are	as	follows:
1. 3D	Robotics	Iris+ 2. 3D Robotics X8 3. 3DRobotics X8+ 4. Aerialtronics Al tura Zenith ATX8 5. AeroVironment Shrike 6. AeroVironment Puma 7. Aeryon Sky

Ranger 8. AirRobot AR200 9. Altavian Nova 10. Align M690L 11. AscTec Falcon 8 12. Cinestar X8 13. DJIInspire 14. DJIPhantom 2 Vision+ 15. DJISpreading Wings S1000 16. Lockheed Martin Indago 17. Pulse Aerospace Pulse Vapor 3 5 18. Pulse Aerospace Pulse Vapor 55 19. PrecisionHawk Hawkeye Mk

- III 20. Precision Lancaster MK33355 Lenox Road | Suite 750 | Atlanta, GA 303 26 | phone: 404.601.1100
www.solusiaair.com 2 21. Scout X4 22. Skycatch 23. Sky Jib 8 v.2 Heavy

L ifter 24. SteadiDrone 25. Turbo Ace MATRIX

- 1 Solusia	Air,	LLC ,	before	operating		these	UASs, will review the	parameters	of	the	operations for each	of	these	25	aircraft	under	our	continuing Safety	Management	System discipline as well	as	comply	with	all	provisions	of	our	Exemption (mentioned	above) and existing standard COA. Solusia	Air	submits	that	the	use	of	the	listed	additional	aircraft will	meet	the	FAA’s	public interest	standard	for	exemptions	in	that	these	UAS	vehicles	will	further	add	to	the Company’s	mission	to	reduce	injuries	and	death	as	compared	to	relying	on	humans inspecting	the	structures	under	this	exemption.	In	that	Solusia	A ir	took	the	unique	and demanding	step	of	subjecting	its	proposed	operations	to	the	state

- of

- the

- art	SMS	review,	its flights	under	this	requested	amendment	to	Exemption	No.	11216	will	provide	an equivalent,	if	not	superior,	level	of	safety.	The	terms	of	the previous	exemption	will	be	met under	this	request for	an	amendment,	if	granted

. All	the	above	UAS	platforms	have	been	previously	approved	by	the	FAA	for	commercial operations	in	the	United	States,	including	Measure	32,	Exemption	No.	12646 .	Thus, expeditio us	treatment	is	justified	in	that	this	request	meets	or	exceeds	all	of	the	terms	of Exemptions	Nos.	11216	and	12646. Sincerely, Christopher	Moccia CEO Solusia	Air,	LLC 3355	Lenox	Road,	Suite	750 Atlanta,	GA		30326 (404)	601

- 1100
# C_2009044EN.01007801.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/78

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2008 — X v Parliament

(Case F-14/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 44/141)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 39.

1

---