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

CERTIFICATION

I, Evan Williams, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Border Management,
Inc;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 Small Business Issuer ("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

(a)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: March 27, 2008

/s/ Evan Williams
-------------------------------
Evan Williams
Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50971

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO PUENTES-ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-826-ALL-DB

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Antonio Puentes-Romero appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Puentes-Romero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Puentes-Romero maintains that he
No. 03-50971

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Puentes-Romero acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350  (Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the filing by TravelCenters of America LLC (the "Company") of the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



Date: February 18, 2011

/s/THOMAS M. O'BRIEN Thomas M. O'Brien President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ANDREW J. REBHOLZ Andrew J. Rebholz Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


---



QuickLinks
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 14, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 14, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0444. PAUL CASSELL v. OAKLAND DOWNS HOA.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 17C01250
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6867 

To create an Office of Conservation Innovation within the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. NUNN of Iowa (for himself and Ms. SPANBERGER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To create an Office of Conservation Innovation within the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

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 ‘‘Conservation Innova5 tion Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OFFICE OF CONSERVATION INNOVATION. 

7 Section 1242(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985 

8 (16 U.S.C. 3842(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(5) OFFICE OF CONSERVATION INNOVATION.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6867 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 

2 establish within the Office of the Chief of the 

3 Natural Resources Conservation Service an Of4 fice of Conservation Innovation (referred to in 

5 this paragraph as the ‘Office’) which shall be 

6 under the direct supervision of the Chief. 

7 ‘‘(B) DUTIES.—The Office shall— 

8 ‘‘(i) provide support to the Chief in 

9 meeting the requirements of this sub10 section; and 

11 ‘‘(ii) encourage innovation in con12 servation practices through— 

13 ‘‘(I) revisions of existing con14 servation practice standards; 

15 ‘‘(II) recommendations of interim 

16 conservation practice standards; and 

17 ‘‘(III) recommendations of new 

18 conservation practice standards. 

19 ‘‘(C) STAFF.—The Chief shall detail to the 

20 Office not more than 6 employees of the De21 partment of Agriculture who are technical spe22 cialists that possess an understanding of con23 ventional, organic, and other production tech24 niques representing— 

25 ‘‘(i) agronomy and agroecology; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6867 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) grazing lands ecology (including 

2 rangeland, pastureland, and grazed forest 

3 land); 

4 ‘‘(iii) animal husbandry (including 

5 animal nutrition and feed management); 

6 ‘‘(iv) water conservation, drainage 

7 water management, and irrigation engi8 neering technology; 

9 ‘‘(v) agricultural engineering (includ10 ing animal waste management, energy, and 

11 structural measures); and 

12 ‘‘(vi) forest ecology. 

13 ‘‘(6) FUNDING.—The Secretary shall use fund14 ing from the annual appropriations for conservation 

15 operations of the Natural Resources Conservation 

16 Service to carry out this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2




                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement is made as of this 1st day
of April, 2002, by and between Stewart Enterprises, Inc., a Louisiana
corporation (the "Company"), and Brian J. Marlowe (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Employment Agreement with the
Employee dated as of November 1, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have agreed to eliminate certain
benefits payable to Employee upon termination of employment in consideration of
the inclusion of Employee as an initial participant in a Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the "SERP").

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of
Employee by the Company, the payment of wages, salary and other compensation to
Employee by the Company and the benefits potentially payable to Employee under
the SERP, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective as of April 1, 2002:

         SECTION 1. Except as expressly amended herein, all of the terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         SECTION 2. Article IV, Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

         SECTION 3. Article IV, Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
renumbered as Article IV, Section 5.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed and signed as of the date indicated above.

                                  STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                  By:
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                           James W. McFarland
                                           Compensation Committee Chairman

                                  EMPLOYEE:


                                  -------------------------------------------
                                               Brian J. Marlowe
|    |                                                                                                                                                  |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment #1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, of Aviat Networks, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Date:  | October 6, 2017 | /s/ Michael A. Pangia |
|   |   | Name: |   | Michael A. Pangia |
|   |   | Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7749

JAMES H. BALDWIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-84-2) Submitted: February 20, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2002 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James H. Baldwin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Baldwin’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Baldwin v. Angelone , No. CA-01- 84-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2001). 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
#### Dwayne GILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom FELKER, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15683

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Dwayne Giles, Pro Se

Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Tom Felker, R. K. Wong

Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Attorney, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Attorney, Kristina Doan Gruen-berg, Esquire, Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee S. M. Roche

Alice Campos Mercado, Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee James M. Nachiondo

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Dwayne Giles appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust *527administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Giles did not exhaust his claims prior to filing this action and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was “something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); *see also Woodford*v. *Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 88, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (to properly exhaust, “a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules”); *Brown v. Valoff,*422 F.3d 926, 943 n.18 (9th Cir. 2005) (argument that delay in responding to a griévañce caused administrative remedies to be effectively unavailable must be supported by facts showing that prisoner was prejudiced by the delay); *McKinney v. Carey,*311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion must be completed before a § 1983 action is filed; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation is insufficient because exhaustion is a precondition to suit).

Contrary to Giles’s contention, exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing an amended complaint alleging the same claims does not constitute proper exhaustion. *See Cano v. Taylor,*739 F.3d 1214, 1220-21 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining exception to exhaustion during pendency of action where new claims are alleged in amended complaint).

We reject as without merit Giles’s contentions that the district court was required to address exhaustion at screening and that defendants waived exhaustion by not raising it in a motion to dismiss.

Giles’s motion (Docket Entry No. 36) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7021 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to the 

procedure for the development of water quality criteria, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

Mr. OWENS (for himself and Mr. ROUZER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with 

respect to the procedure for the development of water 

quality criteria, 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 ‘‘Water Quality Criteria 

5 Development and Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES. 

7 Section 304(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Con8 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7021 IH

1 ‘‘(10) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.—After 

2 the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Admin3 istrator shall issue any new or revised water quality 

4 criteria under paragraph (1) or (9) by rule.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND JUDICIAL RE6 VIEW. 

7 Section 509(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution 

8 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘section 402, and’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘section 402,’’; and 

11 (2) by inserting ‘‘and (H) in issuing any cri12 teria for water quality pursuant to section 

13 304(a)(10),’’ after ‘‘strategy under section 304(l),’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32
 
 CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS
 OF CYBERDEFENDER CORPORATION
 PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350
 
 
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the undersigned officers of CyberDefender Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
  (a)
The annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b)
Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: April 1, 2011
 
 
 
 /s/ Gary Guseinov
 Gary Guseinov
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 /s/ Kevin Harris
 Kevin Harris
 Chief Financial Officer
#### ROBERSON *v.*THE STATE.

No. 13370.

July 16, 1940.

*D. G. Jones,*for plaintiff in error..

*Ellis G. ArnJll, attorney-general, W- .G. Neville, solicitor-general,*
      *665
      *J. J. E. Anderson Son,*and *Herschel E. Smith, assistant attorney-general,*contra.

Keid, Chief Justice.

While we have affirmed the conviction of the husband of the plaintiff in error, jointly indicted with her but separately tried *(Roberson*v. *State,*ante, 661), we have concluded after a careful consideration of the record in this case, that, taking into account all the circumstances relied on by the State, the evidence fails to connect the wife with the crime. It seems to us that the evidence does no more than east suspicion on her, and this only because of her apparent knowledge of certain acts of her husband. That is not sufficient to uphold a verdict of conviction. “To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” Code, § 38-109. It follows that the judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### June M. CANTRELL; Freddie Cantrell, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15936

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

June M. Cantrell, Pro Se

Freddie Cantrell, Jr., Pro Se

Jacob Bundick, Attorney, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

June M. Cantrell and Freddie Cantrell, Jr., appeal pro se from the district court’s *700judgment dismissing their action alleging state law claims and violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal on the basis of the rule against claim-splitting. *Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,*487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), *overruled in part on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,*553 U.S. 880, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Cantrells’ action because the instant action is duplicative of the Cantrells’ earlier action against defendant in the same district court. *See id.*at 688-89 (explaining that an action is duplica-tive if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action, are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same (citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record the Cantrells’ contention that the district judge was biased.

Appellee’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 8) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.