alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                       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 National Energy Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Bob G. Alexander, Chief Executive 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:

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

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



                              /s/ BOB G. ALEXANDER
                    ----------------------------------------
                                Bob G. Alexander
                             Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1663

XIE LEI CHENG, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-683-108) Submitted: December 14, 2005 Decided: January 5, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Xie Lei Cheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Cheng challenges the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Cheng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Cheng’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Cheng fails to show that he- 3 - is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Cheng fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Cheng failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer   I, Eric M. Westbury, Chief Executive Officer of SBM Certificate Company, certify that::  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SBM Certificate Company;  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 its supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to the Company 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 its 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 its 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  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 31, 2012  /s/ Eric M. Westbury Eric M. Westbury Chief Executive Officer   1 120503 SBMCC Form 10-K 2007
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30730]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-380-000]


American Transmission Company, LLC Notice of Filing

November 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 6, 2000, American Transmission Company 
LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Generation-Tansmission 
Interconnection Agreement between ATCLLC and Madison Gas and Electric 
Company.
    ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Comission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before December 8, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30730 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### SAULSBURY v. ATLAS SUPPLY CO. et al.

No. 5213.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Oct. 21, 1940.

Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Walter E. Rogers, of Pampa, for appel-lees.

STOKES, Justice.

This case is before us upon the motion of appellee to reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the trial court to be by that court transferred to one of the district courts of Potter County. Appellant acquiesces in the motion. The case was before this court on May 27, 1940, in an appeal by the appellant from an adverse judgment upon a plea of privilege filed by him. We then held the plea should have been granted and reversed the judgment with instructions that the cause be transferred to one of the district courts of Potter County. Saulsbury v. Atlas Supply Co., 141 S.W.2d 992. After the case had been appealed upon the plea of privilege and before it was submitted in this court, it was tried on the merits and judgment rendered against appellant. The judgment on the plea of privilege having thereafter been reversed, it follows that *931the court below did not have jurisdiction to try the case on its merits. O’Brien v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 459, and authorities there cited. The motion to reverse the judgment will, therefore, be granted and the cause remanded in order that the court below may observe the ruling of this court upon the former appeal.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03586

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6300

WARREN MATTHEW GIDDINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORIZON; MR. RORHER; MCTC NURSE; CENTURION BEHAVIORAL 

HEALTH STAFF,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-03166-LKG)

Submitted: January 31, 2024 Decided: February 23, 2024

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Matthew Giddings, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, 

O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee

Corizon.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6300 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren Matthew Giddings appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to Corizon on his claims raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissing the 

remaining Defendants. On appeal, Corizon has filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice 

of automatic stay informing this court that it commenced Chapter 11 bankruptcy 

proceedings in February 2023. The automatic stay precludes us from reviewing the district 

court’s disposition of Giddings’ claims against Corizon. As to the court’s disposition of 

Giddings’ claims against the remaining Defendants, we have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Giddings’ motion to proceed under the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), and affirm the district court’s order as to all 

defendants except Corizon. Giddings v. Corizon, No. 1:21-cv-03166-LKG (D. Md. Jan. 

25, 2023). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6300 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Stratton J. Nicolaides, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Numerex Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)]
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 23, 2005      */s/* Stratton J. Nicolaides       Stratton J. Nicolaides   Chief Executive Officer and Chairman  
63
#### CLARK et al. v. JONES, Judge.

■ Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 5, 1953.

Terry L. Hatchett, Glasgow, for petitioners.

Respondent not represented by counsel.

. CLAY, Commissioner.

This original proceeding was brought in this Court to obtain a permanent writ of prohibition against the judge of the Met-calfe Circuit Court, to restrain him from proceeding to try petitioners on an indictment charging illegal possession of alcoholic beverages for the. purpose of sale in local option territory. The basis of petitioners’ request is that certain evidence which will be used against them on the trial was obtained under an illegal and void search warrant.

.A writ .of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, and will not be granted by this Court'unless it is shown that: (1) the lower court is acting without jurisdiction or erroneously within its jurisdiction, (2) in such a manner that great and irreparable injury will be suffered, and (3) the petitioners are without another adequate remedy. Jones v. Tartar, 308 Ky. 813, 215 S.W.2d 955. Petitioners’ petition fails utterly to show that those grounds exist. It does no more than offer us an opportunity to adjudge them not guilty before they have • even been tried. This we decline to do.

The temporary writ heretofore issued is dissolved and the request for a permanent writ of prohibition is denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1481

To deauthorize the Kissimmee River restoration project, Florida.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To deauthorize the Kissimmee River restoration project,

Florida.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the project for the ecosystem restoration of the Kis4 simmee River, Florida, authorized by section 101(8) of the

5 Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.

6 4802), is not authorized after the date of the enactment

7 of this Act.

Æ
H. J. Res. 401

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Joint Resolution

Designating the months of March 1995 and March 1996 as ‘‘Irish-American Heritage

Month’’.

Whereas 150 years ago, the blight that struck Ireland’s potato

crop (‘‘the single root that changed the history of the world’’),

known as the Great Famine, caused 2,000,000 of Ireland’s population to emigrate, mostly to America’s shores;

Whereas in 1847 alone, 25,000 Irish immigrants arrived in Boston;

Whereas by 1851, the end of the famine exodus, 1,712 emigrant

ships had sailed up the Narrows into New York harbor;

Whereas during the ‘‘Great Hunger’’ (1845–1851) more people left

Ireland than had emigrated in the previous 250 years;

Whereas within a few years of their arrival in the United States,

these Irish immigrants took jobs as laborers, built railroads,

canals, and schools, dedicated themselves to help build this

Nation, and this same legacy remains a part of today’s American

mainstream;

Whereas James Smith, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton, and

Charles Thomson, 4 of the individuals who signed the Declaration

of Independence, were Irish born and 9 other signers were of

Irish ancestry;

Whereas Irish-born James Hoban designed and supervised the

building of the White House and its restoration after it was

burned in 1814;

Whereas more than 200 Irish-Americans have been awarded the

Congressional Medal of Honor;

Whereas 19 Presidents of the United States proudly claim Irish

heritage, included among them, the first President, George

Washington;

Whereas John W. O’Beirne, Founder of the American Foundation

for Irish Heritage, first requested in 1990 that Congress designate

March as ‘‘Irish-American Heritage Month’’; and

Whereas the 44,000,000 Americans of Irish ancestry, like their

forebears, continue to enrich all aspects of life in the United

States, in science, education, art, agriculture, business, industry,

literature, music, athletics, military and governmental service:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the months

of March 1995 and March 1996 are designated as ‘‘Irish-American

Heritage Month’’. The President is authorized and requested to
H. J. Res. 401—2

issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States

to observe these months with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**MEMORANDUM**

**Date:** January

31, 2014 **Subject:** Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Risk Modeling File **From:** Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/RCG **To:** EPA Docket File (EPA - HQ - OAR- 2011

–0435 ) The attached “PAI_ModFiles_20130813.zip” file contains the emissions inventory used for the risk modeling of the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (PAI) source category . PA I_M odF ile s_20130 813. zi p
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 121 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 121

 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to provide 
   assistance for emergency repairs in lower income housing projects 
               operated by the Chicago Housing Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

   Mrs. Collins of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to provide 
   assistance for emergency repairs in lower income housing projects 
               operated by the Chicago Housing Authority.

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS.

    The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent 
approved in appropriation Acts, provide financial assistance to the 
Chicago Housing Authority in the State of Illinois for the purpose of 
permitting the Authority to make emergency repairs required in lower 
income housing projects operated by the Authority and assisted under 
the United States Housing Act of 1937.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such 
sums as may be necessary.

                                 <all>
```