alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.7

                                 PACIFICNET INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


         I, Tony Tong, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal
executive officer) of PacificNet Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do hereby represent,
warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


/s/ Tony Tong
--------------------------------------------
Name:  Tony Tong
Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
Date:  November 14, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

t0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147317

WILLIAM M. REIDENBACH,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147317

COA: 306671

MCAC: 11-000020

CITY OF KALAMAZOO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED. The Court of Appeals correctly 

held that the decision of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC) 

mailed on September 19, 2011 is not a final order because it did not dispose of “all the 

claims” of the parties. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(1). The Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction 

to consider appeals from final decisions or final orders of the MCAC. MCL 

418.861a(14); Smith v Eaton Corp Torque Controls, 493 Mich 942 (2013).
# Official Journal C 115/28 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 115 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6128 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 115

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6128 March 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 115/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 February 2018 to 28 February 2018(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2018/C 115/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 February 2018 to 28 February 2018(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 115/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 February 2018 to 28 February 2018(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2018/C 115/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 February 2018 to 28 February 2018(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

9

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
##### 



Exhibit 31.1

Certifications
Certification of Principal Executive Officer

I, Robert C. Strauss, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

/s/ Robert C. Strauss

Name: Robert C. Strauss
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board
Date: August 14, 2003
# EDA
June 12, 2012

No. 11-10781 (11A1175).

#### Brawner *v.*Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Garrett Marcell Warbington, :

:

Plaintiff, :

v. : Civil Action No. 19

- 1585 (CKK)

:

Harris Teeter, Inc., :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se , filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia against Harris Teeter, Inc., which removed the action to this Court based on diversity

jurisdiction

. See Not. of Removal ¶ ¶ 3 , 6, 7 [Dkt. # 1] (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (1) ) . Pending

is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement. For the

following reasons, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

On July 1, 2019 , plaintiff was ordered to respo nd to defendant’s motion by August 5,

2019 o r face possible dismissal of the case. See Order [Dkt. # 8 ]. Plaintiff has neither complied

with the order nor requested additional time to comply. Consistent with the advisements in the

order the Court turns to defendant’s arguments

, and it agrees that the C omplaint [Dkt. # 1

- 1] is

wholly deficient in stating a viable claim for relief. S ee Def.’s P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to

Dismiss at 2

- 4 ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ( setting out minimal pleading requirements). The refore,

dismissal is warranted , albeit without prejudice. See Def.’s Praecipe of Dismissal [Dkt. # 9]

( requesting dismissal with prejudice) ; cf. Firestone v. Firestone , 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir.

1996) ( A dismissal with prejudice is harsh and warranted only when a trial court “determines

that ‘the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure2 the deficiency.’ ” ) (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv ., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir.

1985) ); Koch v. White , 134 F. Supp. 3d 158, 164 (D.D.C. 2015) (“G iven the strong preference

for adjudicating cases on their merits rather than on the basis of formalities,

. . . dismissal with

prejudice for less than perfect compliance with Rule 8(a) is unwarranted ”) (citing Ciralsky v.

CIA , 35 5 F.3d 661, 670

- 71 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

___________s/_______________

COLLEEN KOLLAR

- KOTELLY

Date: September 18 , 2019 U nited States District Judge
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Conley Leon ROBINSON, Petitioner

No. 587 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 4, 2018

*105ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8233 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8233

  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to reinstitute subsidies 
 under the Essential Air Service program for certain airports, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2020

  Mr. Trone (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Reed) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to reinstitute subsidies 
 under the Essential Air Service program for certain airports, 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 ``Restoring Essential Service to Small 
Airports Act''.

SEC. 2. COVID-19 ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM REINSTATEMENT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall reinstitute a subsidy under the 
Essential Air Service program for all airports that were removed from 
such program after fiscal year 2015.
    (b) Timing.--For purposes of this section, an airport described in 
subsection (a) shall be reinstituted for the longer of a period of 1 
year beginning on the date of enactment of this Act or the period in 
which such airport meets the qualifying criteria for an airport under 
the Essential Air Service Program.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK ALLEN PRINKEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 57 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of July, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
H. R. 8276 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To authorize the President to posthumously award the Medal of Honor to Alwyn 

C. Cashe for acts of valor during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD MEDAL OF HONOR TO SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ALWYN C. CASHE FOR ACTS OF 

VALOR DURING OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. 

(a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwithstanding the time 

limitations specified in section 7274 of title 10, United States Code, 

or any other time limitation with respect to the awarding of certain 

medals to persons who served in the Armed Forces, the President 

may award the Medal of Honor under section 7271 of such title 

to Sergeant First Class Alwyn C. Cashe for the acts of valor 

described in subsection (b). 

(b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor referred 

to in subsection (a) are the actions of Sergeant First Class Alwyn 

C. Cashe on October 17, 2005, as a member of the Army serving 

in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, for which he was 

posthumously awarded the Silver Star. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8326 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Works and Economic Development 

Act of 1965 to require eligible recipients of certain 

grants to develop a comprehensive economic development 

strategy that directly or indirectly increases the accessibility of affordable, quality child care, and for other 

purposes. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 8326 RFS

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 ‘‘Child Care is Economic 

5 Development Act of 2020’’ or the ‘‘CED Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

7 STRATEGIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 302(a)(3)(A) of the Pub9 lic Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 

10 U.S.C. 3162(a)(3)(A)) is amended— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘balances re12 sources’’; and 

13 (2) by inserting ‘‘, and directly or indirectly in14 creases the accessibility of affordable, quality child 

15 care’’ after ‘‘sound management of development’’. 

16 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

17 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in 

18 consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 

19 Services, shall issue guidance on implementing the amend20 ments made by subsection (a) to include the accessibility 

21 of affordable, quality child care in a comprehensive eco22 nomic development strategy developed under section 302 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 8326 RFS

1 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 

2 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3162). 

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6076

STEVEN HAWKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; CHARLES J.

MCDEVITT, Warden; WALTER POYNER, JR., Security

Chief,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-95-410-AW)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Charles Crum, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion to vacate the order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hawkins v. Charles

County Detention Ctr., No. CA-95-410-AW (D. Md. Dec. 21, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 257 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.257
                                         Agreed to April 1, 1998        

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

 

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, April 
1, 1998, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tueday, April 21, 1998, 
or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Thursday, April 2, 1998, Friday, April 3, 
1998, Saturday, April 4, 1998, or Sunday, April 5, 1998, pursuant to a 
motion made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with 
this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon 
on Monday, April 20, 1998, or such time on that day as may be specified 
by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
I Documentation and Report

Writing

Written reports

I What is the purpose?

Help organize thoughts

I Track progress of

investigation or ca5e

I Accountability

Report results DI invesbahai/inspection

Address spedCc complaint

I Document violation(s)

I Legal document

I Other?

1
our conclusions or recommendations may be ignored or discounted

I The decision-mak& may lack sufficient information

Format?

What does your program require?

I Other ideas?

Tip #2 \

I Complete your mission: Search and

Destroy -

I Time delays

I Unexplained gaps

I Inconsistencies

I Unknowns

2
abbreviations &

technical terms

I R)(: Describe conduct

or behavior

Watch for errors

I R)(: Proofread

I Look for ways to

write clearly

I RX: Short, simple

sentences

Accuracy; Just the facts

* I Avoid pronouns I RX: Use NAMES I Watch for extraneous remarks or information 1 RX: Relevant or interesting? SO WHAT?

I If providing conclusions or

opinions:

I RX: Be objective. Use FACT

statements

3
I Support the lead

sentence with dear

facts or examples.

Tip #5: Don’t forget...

I The Big 5: Who, What, When, Where, How do you know???

I What was collected?

I Who/what was your source?

4
Concusions

I Are they supported

within the report?

I Are they based on

facts?

I Do they Tnake sense?

I How would the target

of the investigation

respond to each?

I Look for holes

5
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12



                                August 5, 1996



Cheniere Energy Operating Co., Inc.
237 Park Avenue, Suite 2100
New York, NY  10017

     Re:  Second Amendment

Gentlemen:

     I am writing with respect to that certain Exploration Agreement dated April
4, 1996, by and between FX Energy, Inc. and Zydeco Exploration, Inc., as amended
by that certain First Amendment dated May 15, 1996 (the "Agreement"). For
convenience, terms defined therein shall have the same meaning when used herein.
FX Energy, Inc. has changed its name to Cheniere Energy Operating Co., Inc.
("FX"). We desire to amend the Agreement as follows:

     1.   FX did not make the payment of $1,000,000 to the segregated account
          which was due on June 30, 1996 under Section 2 of the Agreement.  FX
          shall make the $1,000,000 payment originally due June 30, 1996 to the
          segregated account on or before August 9, 1996.  A failure to make
          such a payment by such date shall, notwithstanding anything in the
          Agreement to the contrary, be treated as a Discontinuance under
          Section 5.

     2.   FX did not make the payment of $1,000,000 to the segregated account
          which was due on July 30, 1996.  FX shall make the $1,000,000 payment
          originally due July 30, 1996, to the segregated account on or before
          October 31, 1996.  A failure to made such a payment by such date
          shall, notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary, be
          treated as a Discontinuance under Section 5.

     3.   It is the intent of the parties that no grace period apply to the
          payments required under this letter to be paid on August 9, 1996 and
          October 31, 1996.

     4.   The parties agree that the agreements by Zydeco to defer payments
          under Section 2 do not obligate Zydeco to grant further waivers nor
          waive the right of Zydeco to have payments made at the times provided
          in the Agreement, as modified hereby.
<PAGE>
 
     Cheniere Energy Operating Co., Inc.
     August 5, 1996
     Page 2



     If I have correctly set forth our agreements, kindly so indicate by
executing one counterpart of this letter and returning it to the undersigned.

                                  Yours very truly,

                              ZYDECO EXPLORATION, INC.



                              /s/ Sam B. Myers
                              ------------------------------
                              Sam B. Myers, Jr., President



ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO THIS
8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996.

CHENIERE ENERGY OPERATING CO., INC.



/s/ William D. Forster
-----------------------------------
President