alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Robert Woods, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Wilson Creek Mining
     Corp.;

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 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     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 annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this annual 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
30th day of January, 2008.


/s/ Robert Woods
--------------------------
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit****10.18**

**TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC**

**Summary of Director Compensation**

Thefollowing is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the directorsof TravelCenters of America LLC (the “Company”) for services as directors,which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Directors.

·                  Eachindependent director receives an annual fee of $25,000, plus a fee of $500 perday per board or committee meeting. Up to two $500 fees are payable if a boardmeeting and one or more board committee meetings are held on the same date.

·                  Thechairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and thenominating and governance committee, each of whom is an independent director,receive an additional annual fee of $7,500, $2,500 and $2,500, respectively.

·                  Eachdirector is entitled to receive a grant of 1,500 of the Company’s shares ofcommon stock on the date of the first board meeting following the spin off andthe date of the annual meeting of the shareholders commencing in 2008 (or, fordirectors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of thefirst board meeting attended) valued at the closing price on the date of thegrant.

·                  The Companygenerally reimburses all directors for reasonable out of pocket expensesincurred in attending meetings of the board of directors or board committees onwhich they serve

----
#### Louisa C. Koehler, Respondent, *v.*John G. Koehler, Appellant.

(Submitted December 9, 1872;

decided December 17, 1872.)

*Henry B. Birdsall*for the appellant.

*Philip Reilly*for the respondent.

All concur for affirmance. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed.
Cody-Yellowstone Air Improvement Resources 

February 23, 2013 

Michael Martin 

Essential Air Service 

US Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

"Promoting Commercial Air Service for the Bighorn Basin" 

... \ .l 

><·'' 

On behalf of Cody-Yellowstone Air Improvement Resources, I would like to support SkyWest 

Airline's Essential Air Service Proposal for Cody, Wyoming. I have reviewed the proposal and 

find it adequate to meet the present needs of our community. 

The counties and cities in the Bighorn Basin recognize the value of the Essential Air Service 

Program in bringing commercial air service to our part of Wyoming. With some of our 

communities located more than 100 miles from a freeway, they really appreciate scheduled air 

service. 

Sincerely, 

Raymond Lee 

Administrator 

CYAIR P. 0. Box 1448 Cody, Wyoming 82414 rayleecyair.gmail.com (602)-315-0604
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Stephen D. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 6, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ STEPHEN D. ALLISON 
|                    |  |  |  | Stephen D. Allison     
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
----

**Exhibit 23.2**

**LETTER OF CONSENT**

TO:     Lundin Mining Corporation

I refer to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Lundin Mining Corporation datedMarch 31, 2009 (including all exhibits, the "Annual Report").

I hereby consent to the use of my report and the appearance of my name in theAnnual Report.

Dated this 31st day of March, 2009.

Yours sincerely, for and on behalf of Wardell Armstrong International

/s/ Mark Owen                               Mark OwenTechnical Director 

 

 

|  | Wardell Armstrong    International Ltd, Wheal Jane, Baldhu, Truro, Cornwall, TR3 6EH, UK | Tel+ 44 (0) 1872    560738 Fax + 44 (0) 1872 561079 Web //www.wardell-armstrong.comRegistered Office Sir    Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire. ST1 5BD.    Company No 3813172 |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6938 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6938

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the deduction 
  for personal casualty losses as in effect prior to the enactment of 
  Public Law 115-97 (commonly referred to as the ``Tax Cuts and Jobs 
                                Act'').

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2024

  Mr. Raskin (for himself and Mr. McGovern) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the deduction 
  for personal casualty losses as in effect prior to the enactment of 
  Public Law 115-97 (commonly referred to as the ``Tax Cuts and Jobs 
                                Act'').

    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 ``Tax Relief for Victims of Crimes, 
Scams, and Disasters Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL CASUALTY LOSS.

    (a) In General.--Section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking paragraph (5).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AMENDED RETURN WINDOW FOR PERSONAL CASUALTY LOSS.

    (a) In General.--In the case of a taxpayer who filed a return for a 
taxable year ending before January 1, 2022, with respect to which a 
deduction could have been taken by the taxpayer under section 165(h) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but for the fact that such deduction 
was suspended at the time of filing--
            (1) the period of limitation prescribed by section 6511(a) 
        of such Code for any such taxable year shall be extended until 
        the date prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing 
        the return of tax for the taxable year that includes the date 
        of the enactment of this Act, and
            (2) section 6511(b)(2) of such Code shall not apply to any 
        claim of credit or refund with respect to such return.
    (b) Extension Restricted to Casualty Loss Deduction.--Subsection 
(a) shall apply only with respect to amendments to the return of tax 
and claims for credit or refund of a taxpayer to the extent such 
amendments or claims relate to the deduction for casualty losses under 
section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03639]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on Awards & Facilities 
hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the 
transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National 
Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, February 22, 2022, from 1:00-1:45 p.m. EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: 
Committee Chair's opening remarks; approval of prior meeting minutes; 
schedule of context and action items; and Information Item: Antarctic 
research vessel design stage briefing.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e0d0c020f071c2e001d0840090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096a6b6568607b49677a6f276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. The You Tube link to 
watch this meeting live is: https://youtu.be/rMKInQzCQ28. Meeting 
updates may be found at the National Science Board website www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-03639 Filed 2-16-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6916 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6916

  To require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 
 report regarding outreach provided to veterans about the availability 
 of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits under the Food 
                       and Nutrition Act of 2008.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2024

Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. Van Orden) introduced the following bill

                            January 9, 2024

                Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 
 report regarding outreach provided to veterans about the availability 
 of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits under the Food 
                       and Nutrition Act of 2008.

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

SECTION 1. GAO REPORT REGARDING SNAP OUTREACH TO FOOD INSECURE 
              VETERANS.

    Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and 
submit to the Congress the results of, a study to examine how States 
with reported high and low rates of food insecurity have targeted 
veterans in the State annual outreach plans to carry out the 
supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food and Nutrition 
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) (commonly know as SNAP) and have 
coordinated with facilities of the Veterans Health Administration to 
help connect veterans to such program as recommended by the Department 
of Agriculture. The study shall include identification of any 
challenges States face in addressing food insecurity among veterans, 
how States have coordinated efforts with VSOs and other NGOs that help 
connect veterans with nutrition assistance programs, and any best 
practices for increasing enrollment in such program of eligible non-
participating households that include veterans.
                                 <all>
```
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

November 30, 2015

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Bobby Joe Peyronel

v. Texas

No. 15-6267

(Your No. PD-1274-14)

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

COUBTORFESrAPPHAUS ^ <£ 2>fa

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

DEC 07 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
Certification of Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


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 Blink Couture, Inc. (the
“Company”) , on Form 10-K , for the year ended July 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Lawrence D. Field, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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 to my
knowledge:





1)
            The
      Report 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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
      October 28, 2010
              
              /s/ Lawrence D. FieldLawrence
      D. FieldPrincipal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer
#### William Wallace, Respondent, *v.*Margaret Fee, Appellant.

(Argued December 18, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

The parties were seized each of a portion of lot twenty-nine in the city of Rochester, deriving title from a common source; by that the west boundary of the lot was given as “ the east line of Clyde street.” Plaintiff’s deed (which was the prior one) conveyed to him the north half of the lot, and also the northerly half of a dwelling-house situate thereon, described as “fronting on Clyde street,” with the land on which it stands, *“*being about sixteen feet square, with the *695appurtenances,” etc. The south-west corner of the north half of the house projected about seven feet upon the south half of the lot. Defendant’s deed conveyed to him the south half of the lot, excepting and reserving therefrom the land upon which plaintiff’s half of the dwelling-house stands. At the date of the deeds the west side of the house was upon the east line of Clyde street, as opened and used. Subsequently the city authorities changed the street, moving the east line thereof to the westward four feet ten inches. Plaintiff took possession of and inclosed the space thus left in front of his half of the house. Defendant tore down the fence, claiming title as far north as the north line of the south half of the lot. Plaintiff sued for the trespass.

*Held,*1st. That the original title, and the right of possession of the parties, as derived therefrom, extended no further west than the east line of Clyde street, as it then was. 2d. That the language of the description in plaintiff’s deed carried his right to the center of the street; and when the public abandoned its easement plaintiff became entitled to the exclusive use of that part of the street abandoned, adjacent to and in front of his half of the house; that in either view defendant had no right in or title to the *locus in quo,*and was therefore liable. The case of *Comstock*v. *Johnson*(46 N. Y., 615) distinguished. '

*James C. Cochrane*for the appellant.

*George F. Da/nforth*for the respondent.

Folger, J.,

reads for affirmance. All concur.

Andrews and Sapallo, JJ., upon the ground that plaintiff was in possession and defendant had shown no title.

Order affirmed, and judgment absolute againt defendant.
#### Bryan SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond MADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-56742

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 7, 2017 Pasadena, California

OCTOBER 04, 2017

Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Attorney, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Bryan Sanchez, Imperial-, CA, Pro Se.

Jonathan Matthew Krauss, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. The California Court of Appeal’s decision was not contrary to *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Although the state-court initially indicated that Sanchez needed to “prove he received an unreliable or fundamentally unfair trial”—a higher hurdle than *Strickland’s*prejudice standard imposes—the court correctly applied *Strickland*in its analysis. “[I]t is the application, not the recitation of a standard that matters for § 2254(d) purposes.” *Hardy v. Chappell,*849 F.3d 803, 819 (9th Cir. 2016).

2. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that Sanchez was not prejudiced by his lawyer’s deficient performance. Given the evidence that contradicted Sanchez’s father’s alibi testimony, we cannot say that all fairminded jurists would conclude that the state court’s prejudice decision was wrong. *See Harrington v. Richter,*562 U.S. 86, 101, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (“A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.”).

3. Sanchez alternatively characterizes the state court’s decision as being based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The state court reviewed the evidence presented at Sanchez’s trial and concluded that “a somewhat stronger alibi would not have had any impact on the outcome.” That determination was not unreasonable for the reason discussed above.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Shore Bridge Corporation, Appellant, *v.*City of Hornell, Respondent.

Argued January 20, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*610
      *William F. Conway*for appellant.

*Albert E. Hollis*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, and Desmond, JJ. Conway, J., dissents and votes to grant a new trial.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6511

RONALD G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS S. LEEBRICK; MOSBY LEEBRICK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-159-R) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald G. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewedthe record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Leebrick , No. CA-98-159-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 1998). Appellant’s motions to appoint counsel, to expedite his appeal, and for oral argument are denied. 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.

DISMISSED