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, Malcolm Skolnick, President and Chief Executive Officer certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CytoGenix, Inc.;



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 we 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 function):



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: November 20, 2006



/s/ Malcolm Skolnick

Malcolm Skolnick
President & CEO
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50044

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PATRICIA SAMANIEGO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-119-5

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Patricia Samaniego has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Samaniego has not filed a response. Our independent

review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.3   Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
May 21, 1999


                              For further information contact:
                              David M. Bradley
                              President and Chief Executive Officer
                              North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                              825 Central Avenue
                              Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                              515-576-7531


               NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. DECLARES DIVIDEND


David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.10 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 1999.  The dividend will be
payable to all stockholders of record as of June 16, 1999 and will be paid on
July 6, 1999.

North Central Bancshares, Inc. serves north central and southeastern Iowa at 7
full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington and Mount
Pleasant, Iowa through its wholly-owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank
of Iowa, headquartered in Fort Dodge, Iowa.  The Bank's deposits are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  The Company's stock is traded on The
Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FFFD".
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6563 

To repeal a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain 

regulations with respect to advanced impaired driving technology, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. PERRY (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. OGLES, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. GOSAR, 

Ms. BOEBERT, Ms. HAGEMAN, Mr. ROSENDALE, and Mr. ROY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation 

to issue certain regulations with respect to advanced 

impaired driving technology, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No Kill Switches in 

5 Cars Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6563 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY. 

2 Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and 

3 Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6744 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from providing health care 

to, or engaging in claims processing for health care for, any individual 

unlawfully present in the United States who is not eligible for health 

care under the laws administered by the Secretary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. BOST (for himself, Mr. SELF, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of 

Florida, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from providing 

health care to, or engaging in claims processing for 

health care for, any individual unlawfully present in the 

United States who is not eligible for health care under 

the laws administered by the Secretary. 

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 ‘‘No VA Resources for 

5 Illegal Aliens Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6744 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CARE OR PROCESSING OF CLAIMS 

2 FOR CARE FROM DEPARTMENT OF VET3 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not provide 

5 health care to, and may not engage in claims processing 

6 for health care for, any individual unlawfully present in 

7 the United States who is not eligible for health care under 

8 the laws administered by the Secretary. 

Æ
San loaqu¡n Valley tAIR P(lLTUTIflI{ CflNTRflL DISTRICT HEATTHY AIR LIVINGOctober 14,2014

Mr. Mike Guzzelta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

California Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

Dear Mr, Guzzelta

Attached is the Rule Action Package for Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces

and Wood Burning Heaters) adopted by the District's Governing Board on

September 18,2014. We request the California Air Resources Board (ARB)

transmit this rule and the appropriate documentation to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a SIP revision.

lncluded in this Rule Action Package are the following attachments

1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist

2. ARB APCD/AQMD Rule Evaluation Form

3. Clean copy of Rule 4901

4. Underline/Strikeout Copy of Rule 4901

5. Governing Board Resolution

6. Governing Board Memo

7. Evidence of Public Hearing

8. Final Staff Report with appendices

lf you have any questions, please contact Anna Myers at (559) 230-6100 or by email at anna.myers@valleyair.org. The District thanks you and your staff for your

assistance.

Gilt

Director of Strategies and lncentives

Attachments

Seyed Sadredin

Executive Director/Air P0lluti0n C0ntrol 0ff¡cer

Northern ßegion

4800 Enterprise Way

Modesto, CA 95358.871 I

Tel: (209) 557.8400 FAX: (2091 557.64i5

Contral Region {Main Office}

1 990 E. Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, CA 53726.0244

Tel: (5591 230-8000 FAX: 1559) 230.6061

Southern Region

34946 Flyover Court

Bakersfield, CA S3308.9725

Tel: 881.392-5500 FAX: 861.392.5585

www.valleyair.org www.healthyairliving.com Pri¡rod on rocycl.d pop¡r O
EXHIBIT
      32.1





SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATIONS BY PRESIDENT


AND
      CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Landbank Group, Inc. (the "registrant")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Douglas Gravink,
      Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, 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
      registrant.








Date:  March
        30,
        2007
  By: 
/s/
        Douglas
        Gravink
 Douglas
        Gravink, CEO





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Landbank Group, Inc. (the "registrant")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Gary Hewitt,
      President of the registrant, 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
      registrant.








Date: March
        30,
        2007
  By: 
/s/ Gary
        Hewitt
 Gary
        Hewitt,
        President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**LOUIS RODITE,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**AMBER CABOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS**

**ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL CABOT, DECEASED,** 

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 137 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of September, 2016, the Emergency App lication for** 

**Reinstatement of Automatic Supersedeas on Execution of Ju dgment for Possession is** 

**denied.**
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6811 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6811

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to 
  provide for high-priority research and extension grants for natural 
               climate solutions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

 Mr. Garbarino (for himself and Ms. Houlahan) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to 
  provide for high-priority research and extension grants for natural 
               climate solutions, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Natural Climate Solutions Research 
and Extension Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. HIGH-PRIORITY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION GRANTS FOR NATURAL CLIMATE 
              SOLUTIONS.

    Section 1672(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(21) Natural climate solutions.--Research and extension 
        grants may be made under this section for the purpose of 
        advancing land management practices that store carbon or reduce 
        greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural lands and soils, 
        grasslands, wetlands, and forests, including practices that--
                    ``(A) are based on traditional ecological 
                knowledge;
                    ``(B) promote biodiversity and climate change 
                resilience; and
                    ``(C) reduce runoff.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito GOMEZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41620 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 22, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office,-Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. .

*384PER CURIAM: *

Benito Gomez-Jimenez appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea and conviction for being found in the United States without permission, following removal. He contends that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence under United States Sentencing Guideline § L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on a determination that his conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02 was equivalent to a conviction for the generic offense of “burglary of a dwelling,” which was enumerated in the application notes accompanying § 2L1.2 as a “crime of violence.” Gomez-Jimenez argues that, in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), § 30.02 defines a single indivisible offense too broad to meet the generic definition of burglary of a dwelling, and that the district court erred when it narrowed his offense of conviction using the modified categorical approach.

In *United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 175-76 (5th Cir. 2014), this court held that § 30.02 is a divisible statute and that courts may apply the modified categorical approach to determine which of the three subsections in § 30.02(a) formed the basis of a defendant’s conviction. This court reaffirmed that decision in *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017), specifically determining that *Mathis*did not alter its prior holding. Although Gomez-Jimenez contends that *Uribe*was wrongly decided, he concedes that his argument is foreclosed by that decision.

Accordingly, Gomez-Jimenez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47,5.4.
Nathaniel Lamar WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2046

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### ADAMS v. THE STATE.

Appeal fro fa Comanche county.

*Practice.*— Plea of former conviction is defective unless it sets out the record of the former conviction, and specifically alleg-es the idem tity of the person and offense. The plea not being- excepted to however, the evidence offered in support of it, admitted without ob jection, will be considered as found in the statement of facts. In support of the plea it was proved at the same time and place, the defendant branded another animal, and. the defense was that the two acts constituting- but one offense, though the animals belonged i.o different owners, the conviction in one case operated as a bar to further prosecution. Such a rule applies to offenses of this character as well as to theft, and the court erred, first, in charging to con-statute such defense the branding oi the two must have been simultaneous, instantaneous acts $ second, that if the animals belonged to different owners the defense would not avail; and third, in refusing a charge asked in h armony with the role here announced. The State should not have been permitted to read in evidence the defendant’s affidavits for attachments for certain witnesses wherein ho set up a different defense, the defendant being an unwarned prison - er when he made it.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
#### INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Appellant v. ERICSSON INC., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Appellees

2016-1955

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 19, 2017

Michael E. Joppre, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Paul Ashley Ainsworth, Lori A. Gordon, Pauline Pelletier, Byron Leroy Pickard.

J. Andrew Lowes, Haynes *&*Boone, LLP, Richardson, TX, argued for appel-lees. Also represented by Clint S. Wilkins; Debra Janece McOomas, Dallas, TX.

(Newman, Dyk, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2330

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

Cameron Lee Klouda

Defendant Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: April 20, 2020

Filed: April 23, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Cameron Klouda appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Klouda. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Furthermore, having independently

reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

______________________________

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-
#### Davis v. Kimball *et al.*

Venue : suit at wrong place as to two of five counts : change of venue : expenses. This action, in five counts, was brought in the district court at Avoca, but the court would have had no jurisdiction at that place (it not being the county-seat) of the causes of action set up in two of the counts, had they stood alone. Defendants moved that as to these two counts the cause be removed to Council Bluffs, which was the county-seat and the place of their residence, and that they be allowed compensation for trouble and expense in attending at the wrong place. *Held*that the motion was properly overruled on both points, and that their proper'remedy, if they were not willing to try the whole case at Avoca, was to move to strike out those counts of which the court had no jurisdiction.

*Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.*— Hon. G-eobge Causón, Judge.

Filed, March 9, 1888.

This is an action at law, and was brought in the district court at Avoca, in Pottawattamie county. The petition contains five counts, three of which were upon promissory notes made payable, at Avoca, to the order of J. W. Davis, and by him transferred to the plaintiff. The other two counts were for the wrongful conversion of certain property and money of the plaintiff by the defendants. The defendants, who reside in the city of Council Bluffs, appeared and made an application for a change of the place of trial of the demands set forth in the said last two counts. They also demanded a reasonable compensation for trouble, expenses, etc., for being *85compelled to appear at Avoca. The plaintiff filed objections to the application for a change of the place •of trial, and on the same day dismissed that part of the action contained in said two counts. Afterwards the court overruled the application, and refused to allow the defendants any compensation. Defendants appeal.

*Fremont Benjamin*and *Finley Burlte,*for appellants.

Turner, *Smith & Chdlison,*for appellee.

Rothrock, J.

The defendants did not demand that the venue of the whole suit or action be changed. They could not rightfully do this, because the court at Avoca had jurisdiction of the action so far as it related to the promissory notes payable at Avoca. They demanded that the petition should be divided, and part of the claims should be tried at one place and part at another. This they had no right to require. They were rightfully in court at Avoca on that part of the suit which was brought upon the promissory notes. If they did not desire to try the other counts of the petition, then they should have moved to strike them from the petition. But the plaintiff saved them that trouble by striking them out on her own motion.

This is all there is of the case. We need not determine the other questions discussed by counsel.

Affirmed.