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

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kenneth W. Brimmer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of STEN Corporation (formerly Sterion Incorporated);

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(s) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(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 15, 2005 | /s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer 
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|                       | Chief Executive Officer
### SERVED: JULY 9, 2012'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### MAUREEN T. WILSON-DOUBEK

FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2011-0683
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

<' 

### ll



# ..

On September 1, 2011, the Federal AviationAdministration (hereinafter 

### 10 

## p

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. Maureen T. _Wilson-Doubek (hereinafter "Respondent") hadearlierrequested a hearing. By letter dated July 6, 2012, Respondent filed a document in which she withdrew her Requestfor Hearing, citing settlement ofthe matter. · 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215 states: "Atany time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney maywithdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart withprejudiCe."2 WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been read and considered, it is ORDERED that: 1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED.**P-:4Jc~fk** Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law Judge Attachments - Service List .

.. "

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL 

### & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY John C. Doubek, 

### Respondent's Counsel Doubek & 

### Pyfer, LLP 307 North Jackson P.O. Box236 Helena, MT 59624 TEL: 406-442-7830 FAJ(: 406-442-7839 David F. Shayne, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, SW. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2165 FAJ(: 425-227-1007 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0683 (Civil Penalty Action)

'•



### The Honorable Richard**~'** 

### Goodwin,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address:, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWrightBuilding-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430.
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 —Fey--eT-FittAt—ttsmittste— 

NO: 117.4 

DATE: September 1, 1966 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 

ORDER 

SUBJECT: Director of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) 

Program 

1. Effective September 1, 1966, the Commander, Air 

Force Systems Command, General James Ferguson, in addition 

to his other duties, is designated Director of the Manned 

Orbiting Laboratory (M01) Program, Office of the Secretary 

of the Air Force, vice General B. A. Schriever, retired. 

2. As Director of the MOL program, he will report 

directly to the Secretary of the Air Force and will manage 

and conduct all aspects of the. approved MOL program in 

accordance with the guidance and policies established and 

approved by the Secretary of the Air Force. He is authorized 

direct communication with all Air Force units and other Government agencies. In addition, he will be specifically responsible for maintaining liaison with, and providing complete 

and timely program status information in comprehensive form 

to the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, and other interested Government 

agencies on matters relating to the MOL prograM. 

3. In the discharge of these responsibilities, he will 

maintain the office located in the Pentagon near the office 

of the Secretary of the Air Force, which will constitute a 

staff element of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. 

This office will be staffed by a selected number of highly 

qualified Air Force officers, including a full-time general 

officer as Vice Director, MOL, and manned with Air Force 

Systems Command resources. Representation from other Government agencies may be included, if appropriate. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NO: 117.4 

DATE: September 1, 1966 

4. He will maintain a program implementation office, 

designated the MOL Systems Office at the Air Force Space 

Systems Division, El Segundo, California. This office will 

be headed by a full-time general officer, designated Deputy 

Director, MOL, who will report directly to the Director, MOL. 

5. Secretary of the Air Force Order 117,4, dated August 

25, 1965, is hereby superseded. 

6. This Order is issued in accordance with Air Force 

Regulation 11-18, July 18, 1963, subject; "Delegating or 

Assigning Statutory Authority." 

HAROLD BROWN 

Secretary of the Air Force
National Reconnaissance Office Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #02-23

Contact: 703-808-1198 | media@nro.mil April 18, 2023

“The future is now,” NRO director says at 38th Space Symposium

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – The National Reconnaissance Office is advancing 

space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) beyond what was 

thought possible, with new capabilities on orbit, on the ground, and everywhere in 

between.

Dr. Chris Scolese, director of the NRO, delivered this message in his keynote address at 

the 38th Space Symposium, an annual gathering of more than 10,000 space industry 

professionals. 

“We’ve long talked about what the future could look like,” Dr. Scolese said. “In fact, it’s 

already here.” 

The NRO is currently building the most proliferated, diverse, and resilient overhead ISR 

constellation it has ever had. Within the next decade, it expects to quadruple the number 

of satellites currently on orbit and deliver ten times as many signals and images as its 

current architecture does. This constellation will include large and small satellites in 

multiple orbits and will integrate both government and commercial systems.

Among the innovations Dr. Scolese described are integrating automation and machine 

learning and tapping emerging technologies the private sector is developing. This will 

enable the NRO to put more capability into space and deliver intelligence even faster. 

“The future is now,” Dr. Scolese said. “The NRO is committed to accelerating our 

advantage in space. We are continuing to push boundaries and develop new and better 

technology to deliver the critical intelligence our policymakers, warfighters, and other 

users need, right when they need it. The safety and security of the world and our nation 

depend on it.”

Remarks as prepared for delivery can be found here.

Learn more at NRO.gov

###

NRO is the leader in developing, acquiring, launching, and operating the nation’s 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance satellites to secure and expand America’s 

advantage in space. We are building a diversified and resilient architecture of spacecraft 
and ground systems designed to meet the challenges of a changing space environment by 

accelerating innovation and leveraging strategic partnerships, backed by a diverse and 

highly skilled workforce. At NRO, we See It, Hear It, Sense It so our nation’s warfighters 

and policymakers have decision advantage amid increasing global competition. Learn 

more at NRO.gov
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1272 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study 

on the effects of forward capacity auctions and other capacity mechanisms. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2015 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a study on the effects of forward capacity auctions and other capacity mechanisms. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GAO CAPACITY MARKET IMPACT STUDY AND 

4 REPORT. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

7 shall— 

8 (1) conduct a study of the effects of forward ca9 pacity auctions or other capacity mechanisms that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1272 IS

1 have been established by Independent System Opera2 tors or Regional Transmission Organizations on— 

3 (A) consumer prices for electricity; 

4 (B) the installation of new electrical gen5 eration systems; 

6 (C) the preservation of existing electrical 

7 generation systems; and 

8 (D) competition in energy markets, includ9 ing the potential for the use of undue market 

10 power or manipulation in the auctions; and 

11 (2) submit to the appropriate committees of 

12 Congress a report describing the results of the study 

13 conducted under paragraph (1), including an assess14 ment of whether the auctions or capacity mecha15 nisms are producing rates that are just and reason16 able. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4851

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARIO L. RICHARDSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-98-146)

Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 27, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin F. Brooks, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Shannon L. Taylor, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario Richardson appeals his conviction and sentence following

his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841

(1994) and one count of carrying a firearm during and in relation

to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Richardson preserved his right to appeal

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained when police stopped him at a roadblock checkpoint. We conclude that the district court properly found the search and seizure

did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the court correctly

concluded that the evidence was admissible. See Terry v. Ohio, 392

U.S. 1 10, 23 (1968). We therefore affirm the court’s denial of

Richardson’s suppression motion based upon the court’s reasoning as

stated at the suppression hearing.

According, we affirm Richardson’s conviction and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument could not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Consolidated Financial Statements of Exigent International, Inc. for the Year
Ended January 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                            429 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,747<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,365       
<PP&E>                                          4,043      
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,195    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,949      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,129    
<BONDS>                                           563  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         7 
<COMMON>                                           38 
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,213       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,949         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,936          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30,033          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  240       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 55       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (337)      
<INCOME-TAX>                                      150      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (337)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (486) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.13) 
<FN>

<F1> Includes costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted 
     contracts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Ellis, Appellant, vs. Allen Land Company and another, imp., Respondents.

*March 15*—

April *5, 1911.*

*Appeal: Review: Bill of exceptions: 'Presumptions: Dismissal of action for delay in prosecution.*

1. Upon appeal from a judgment a bill of exceptions must be settled in order to make tie evidence upon which, the court acted a part of the record.

2. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a recital in the judgment dismissing a complaint under sec. 2883, Stats. (1898), that it appeared to the trial court that plaintiff had been guilty of unnecessary and inexcusable neglect and delay in bringing the action'to trial, will be conclusively presumed to have been based, upon sufficient evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eau Claire county: James O’Eeill, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of *J. F. Filis.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Sturdevant &■ Farr,*and oral argument by *L. M. Sturdevant.*

'Wietslow, C. J.

This is an appeal from judgment dismissing the complaint because of unreasonable delay and neglect in serving the summons upon certain defendants and because of unreasonable delay in bringing the action to trial. The motion was based upon that part of sec. 2883, Stats. (1898), which provides for dismissal in such cases. The record shows that several persons were named as defendants in the summons and complaint and that the summons was served upon two defendants in May, 1905, but that a number of the defendants were not served upon until September, 1908, at which time the motion to dismiss was made and granted. FTo-bill of exceptions has been settled in the case, hence we are not informed by the record upon what evidence or affidavits-the dismissal was based. It appears by the recitals of the *65judgment that it appeared to the court “that the plaintiff has been guilty of unreasonable and inexcusable neglect and delay in prosecuting said action- and bringing the same to trial.” In the absence of a hill of exceptions it must he conclusively presumed that this conclusion was based upon sufficient evidence. Certain affidavits are attached to the record and are printed, but as they have not been made part of the record by being preserved in a bill of exceptions they cannot be considered upon appeal from the judgment.

Where an appeal is taken from an order, and the clerk’s return or the order itself identifies the papers used by the parties on the application below, such papers may be considered upon the appeal, but this results from the specific provisions of the statute (sec. 3050, Stats. 1898). The appeal here is from a judgment and this rule does not apply. There must be a bill of exceptions settled in order to make the evidence on which the court acted a part of the record. *Butler v. Gil*lis, 104 Wis. 421, 80 N. W. 735.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1482 

To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the 

antitrust laws to the award of need-based educational aid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2015 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the antitrust laws to the award of need-based 

educational aid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Need-Based Edu5 cational Aid Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1482 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF 

2 THE ANTRITRUST LAWS TO THE AWARD OF 

3 NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL AID. 

4 Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act 

5 of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

8 after the semicolon; 

9 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘; or’’ 

10 and inserting a period at the end; and 

11 (C) by striking paragraph (4); and 

12 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2015’’ and 

13 inserting ‘‘2022’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kenneth W. Brimmer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of STEN Corporation;

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(s) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(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  February 13, 2008 | /s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer 
|----------------------- | -----------------------
|                        | Chief Executive Officer