alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth W. Bell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date:March 20, 2007 /s/ Kenneth W. Bell Kenneth W. Bell Chief Executive Officer
### 4 A tt ac h m e n t s

S c o t t

,

At t a c h e d i s t h e m e m o w

e d i s c uss e d o ve r t h e ph o n e d o c

u m e n t i n g A E C

O M ’ s j us t i f i c a t i o n for t h e us

e of t h e 3-

y e a r

a ve r a g e of t h e 98

th p e r c e n t i l e as t h e a m b i e n t ba c k g round for t h e 1- h o ur NO 2 N A A Q S m o d e l i n g i n sup p or t o f t h e

P H P P P SD P e r m i t A pp l i c

a t i o n

. A l s o a tt a c h e d a r e t h e t hr ee sp r e adsh e e t s r

e f e r r e d t o i n t h e m e m o c

o n t a i n i n g t h e

s u pp or t i n g ba c

k g r o und da t a

.

P l e as e d o n o t h e s

i t a t e t o c a l l or e m a i l w

i t h an y qu e s

t i o ns or c o m m e n t s

. P l e as e n o t e t ha t w e ha v e r e c e n t l y

m o ve d t o a n e w b u i l d i n g s

o m y p h o n e nu m b e r has c han g e d

.

T han k y o u

, R i cha r d H a m el



### D i s c u s s i on o f A m b i e n t B ac kg r ound S e l ec ti on f o r 1

- hou r NO 2 M od e li ng i n s uppo r t o f P H PP

P S D P e r mit A pp li ca ti on H a m e l

, R i c h a r d

t o : S c o t t B ohn i n g 07 / 21 / 2011 12 : 48 P M
C c : S h i r l e y R i v e r a
, " B ec kh a m

. L i s a @ e p a m a il

. g ov "

, " H e a d

, S a r a "

H i d e D e t a i l s F r o m: " H a m e l

, R i c h a r d " < r i c h a r d

. h a m e l @ aec o m

. c o m>

T o : S c o tt B ohn i ng / R 9 / U S E P A / U S @ E P A

C c : S h i r l e y R i v e r a

/ R 9 / U S E P A / U S @ E P A

, " B e c kh a m

. L i s a @ e p a m a il

. gov "

< B ec kh a m

. L i s a @ e p a m a i l

. gov>

, " H ea d

, S a r a " < S a r a

. H ea d@ ae c o m

. c o m>

1- h ou r N O 2 A mb i e n t

B a c k g r ound J u s t i f

i c a t i o n f o r P H P P N A A Q S M od e l i n g 072111

. p df P H P P I m p a c t s by H o u r

. x l sx

2 008

- 2 010 B a c kg r ound D a t a A n a l y s i s. x l sx 2 008

- 2 010 D a il y M a x B a c kg r o und D a t a A n a l y s i s. x l sx 

### P a g e 1 o f 2

7 / 21 / 2011 f il e :// C :\ D o c u m e n t s a nd S e tti ng s \ S R I V E R 02 \ L o c a l S e tti ng s \ T e m p \ no t e s B AAA 25 \

~ w e b58

. ..A i r Q ua li t y M e t eo r o l o g i s t

E n v i r on m en t
D 978

. 905

. 2231

r i cha r d

. h a m e l @a e co m

. c om AECOM

2 50 A po l l o D r i ve

, C h e l m s f o r d

, M A 01824
T : 978

- 9 05

- 2 100

, F : 9 78

- 9 05

- 2 101

www

. aec o m

. com 

### P a g e 2 o f 2

7 / 21 / 2011 f il e :// C :\ D o c u m e n t s a nd S e tti ng s \ S R I V E R 02 \ L o c a l S e tti ng s \ T e m p \ no t e s B AAA 25 \

~ w e b58

. ..
#### Walter TRUJILLO-PORTILLO, a/k/a Jual Del Trujillo-Walter, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2172

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2017

Decided: April 12, 2017

Stephen C. Fleming, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN C. FLEMING, State College, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Trujillo-Portillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala and a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance and finding that he abandoned his application for cancellation of removal. After reviewing the record and the transcript of the proceedings, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Trujillo-Portillo’s appeal. *See Lendo v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that denial of continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40550 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT LEE ROBBINS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CR-107-1
- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Lee Robbins has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Robbins’ response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the Federal Public Defender is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Record of Contacts

 FDMS Docket No. FAA-2011-0042

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

TCCA Anthony Wan 5/6/09 No objection

BA Alexandre

St-Arnaud

5/6/09 No objection

Regional 

Airline

Association

(RAA)

Connie Arnold,

Manager

Technical

Services

5/6/09 No objection
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Henry B. Lennert, Appellant.

Argued October 15, 1943;

decided December *2,*1943.

*739
      *Irvin Husin*for appellant.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Ferdinand J. Wolf*and *Eunice H. Carter*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachbr, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,204,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,562,478
<PP&E>                                       2,596,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                 443,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,409,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,388,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        301
<COMMON>                                         9,582
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,027,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,409,054
<SALES>                                        177,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,895
<CGS>                                        1,698,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,114,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,955,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,955,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,955,458)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.308)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.308)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          38,851
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  388,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    793,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,286,691
<PP&E>                                         124,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,437,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          600,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,452,718
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,947,756)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,437,451
<SALES>                                      1,349,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,349,148
<CGS>                                          668,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  680,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (125,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (125,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (125,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Marina AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher ORMAN; Michael Lessmeier, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35269

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Marina Austin, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Marina Austin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from injuries sustained while riding on a bus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Austin failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants Orman and Lessmeier personally partici*338pated in the alleged rights deprivation. *See Jones v. Williams,*297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires personal participation by the defendant).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People *v.*E. Remington & Sons. *In re*Claim of Ilion Nat’l Bank.

*Wm. Kernan,*for app’lt; *A. M. Mills,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur,

Affirming 36 N. Y. State Rep., 577.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lawrence BREWINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4244

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 17, 2017

Decided: April 12, 2017

*180Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Lawrence Brewington appeals his 48-month sentence for five counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and aiding and abetting. Brewington argues that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for engaging in the trafficking of firearms. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the court’s judgment and remand for resen-tencing.

“In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). The enhancement for trafficking firearms, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2015), applies if two conditions are met. One, the defendant must have “transported, transferred, or otherwise disposed of two or more firearms to another individual, or received two or more firearms with the intent to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of firearms to another individual.” USSG §• 2K2.1 cmt. n.l3(A)(i). Two, the defendant must have “[known] or had reason to believe that such conduct would result in the transport, transfer, or disposal of a firearm to an individual ... whose possession or receipt of the firearm would be unlawful; or ... who intended to use or dispose of the firearm unlawfully.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n,13(A)(ii). Brewington does not dispute that he transferred the necessary number of firearms, but he argues that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the knowledge requirement.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree that the evidence before the district court was insufficient to demonstrate that Brewington knew or had reason to believe that the firearms would be possessed unlawfully, or that their recipient intended to use or dispose of them unlawfully. Accordingly, we vacate Brewington’s sentence and remand for resentencing without application of the firearm trafficking enhancement. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**WPCS
      INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED**


**FORM
      10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 2007**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I
      am the
      Chief Executive Officer of WPCS International Incorporated, a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection
      with
      the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2007 and filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-K").





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Form 10-K 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 the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: July
                30, 2007
            
            /s/ ANDREW
                HIDALGO
              Andrew
                  Hidalgo
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Alleviation Medical Services, P.C., as Assignee of KADEEM ANDERSON, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered June 6, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>While defendant submitted an affirmation from the doctor who was scheduled to perform the independent medical examinations (IMEs), the doctor did not establish that he possessed personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff's assignor for the IMEs. Therefore, defendant failed to establish its entitlement, as a matter of law, to judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for IMEs (<i>see Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. &amp; Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]; <i>Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co.</i>, 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]). In addition, as each IME scheduling letter was mailed to plaintiff's assignor at a different address, there is also an issue fact as to whether plaintiff's assignor received notice of both scheduled IMEs.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: June 06, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
15418

#### STATE v. STRICKLAND *ET AL.*

(22 S. E. (2d), 417)

*174
      *Mr. George Warren,*of Hampton, Counsel for Appellants,

*175
      *Mr. Randolph Murdaugh,*Solicitor, of Hampton, for the State,

May 29, 1942.

The Opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Associate Justice Stukes :

The facts relating to this appeal are sufficiently stated in the order of the Honorable E. D. Eide, presiding Judge, dated at Allendale on April 16, 1940, which will be reported, so it is unnecessary to repeat them.

The granting or refusal of a motion for a new trial made upon the ground of after-discovered evidence is largely within the sound discretion of the Circuit Judge and his decision thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, amounting to manifest error of law. See the South Carolina cases in West’s South Eastern Digest and supplements, Volume 3, Appeal and Error, 981, and Volume 26, New Trial, 99.

The contents of the Circuit order evidence the painstaking care with which the learned Judge considered the motion and supporting papers. Dike him, this Court has reviewed the Transcript of Record in the former appeal and the proceedings upon the motion; and despite the earnest argument of appellants’ present able counsel we find no error.

The exceptions are overruled and the judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bonham, Messrs. Associate Justices Baker and FishburnE, and Circuit Judge G. Dewey Oxner, Acting Associate Justice, concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 





QNB Corp.


15 North Third Street


Quakertown, Pennsylvania 18951


 


May 22, 2012


 


 


Mr. Thomas J. Bisko


9 Clover Lane


Quakertown, Pennsylvania 18951


 


Re: Employment Agreement dated September 2, 1986


 


Dear Mr. Bisko:


 


This will confirm our discussions and understanding
regarding your intention to retire from service as an employee and executive officer of QNB Corp. and its wholly owned banking
subsidiary, QNB Bank, on December 31, 2012. We understand that you have agreed to continue your service as a director of both QNB
Corp. and QNB Bank following your retirement.


 


As a result of your retirement at the end
of 2012, we have mutually agreed that the “December 31, 2013” date included in Section 2 of your existing employment
agreement, dated September 2, 1986, be revised to read “December 31, 2012,” so that the term of the employment agreement
will coincide with the date of your retirement. Except as modified by the preceding sentence, the employment agreement will remain
in effect in accordance with its terms until your retirement date, at which time the employment agreement will terminate.


 


If you are in agreement with the foregoing,
please indicate your agreement by signing the enclosed duplicate copy of this letter and returning it to me at your convenience.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	QNB Corp.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Dennis Helf
	 	Dennis Helf
	 	Chairman of the Board


 


Accepted and agreed, intending to be


legally bound, this 22nd day of May 2012:


 


 


	/s/ Thomas J. Bisko
	Thomas J. Bisko