alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Sheldon C. Fenton certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005         /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton           Sheldon C. Fenton, Chief Executive Officer  
21
AVS Protocols and Controls

Safety for public on the ground as well as manned aircraft above is an essential and utmost 

consideration for aerial videos and photography. As such, safety protocols and controls must be 

implemented through pre-flight preparation and during flight.

Pre-Flight Protocol:

• Check batteries with voltage meter to insure fully charged and ready for use.

• Inspect batteries for damage or leakage that may affect proper operation.

• Inspect propellers for cracks, chips or damage that may cause sudden loss of propulsion or 

unmanageable/uncontrolled flight.

• Check weather forecasts for wind advisory or other conditions that my impact flight.

• Consult five (5) mile radius map for airport vicinity.

o Contact respective airport to advise of estimated flight time, estimated flight duration, 

estimated elevation of flight, and any other pertinent information.

• Inspect flight area for vicinity of public safety helipads/heliports

o vicinity of medical helipads/heliports

o vicinity of light poles

o vicinity or utility wires

o vicinity of trees

o flocks of birds that may cause interference and potential flight impact

o vicinity of any elevated obstructions that may pose potential flight hazard o vicinity of 

roadways with moderate to heavy traffic that can be distracted o public gatherings that may 

attract viewers

o optional point of control for best visual site of UAS while in flight

• Takeoff and landing

o inspect area for best and safest point of takeoff and landing

o if in a subdivision or area that is within 150 feet of a residential street, post warning 

sign(s)/stand(s) *Attention Aerial Photography In Progress - Remain Back 100 Feet "

Flight Protocol:

• takeoff and land from same location

• remain alert to birds, sound or aircraft, curious public, and approaching vehicles

• do not allow anyone to engage in conversation or distract the remote control pilot

• restrict flight to minimal elevation sufficient to acquire desired results

• remained prepared for emergency landing at all times

• pay attention to flight time

o if possible set a timer as a safety alert land UAS and shut down propulsion immediately 

following landing
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________ _______________ No. 14

- 15816

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:1 3

- cv
- 0 1215

- VMC

- TGW

KRISTINE BODY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

versus
SECRE T ARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS , Defendant

- Appellee

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (October 6, 2015) Case: 14-15816 Date Filed: 10/06/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HALL , * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument by counsel for the parties , this Court find s no reversible error in the district court’s grant of the
defen dant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff Kristine Body’s employment discrimination and hostile work environment claims against the
defendant Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final judgment in favor of the defendant

. AFFIRMED.

* Honorable J. Randal Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-15816 Date Filed: 10/06/2015 Page: 2 of 2
#### MARCUS LAURITSEN v. HERBERT SYKES.1

December 18, 1908.

Nos. 15,761—(58).

Action in the district court for Lincoln county to recover $1,000 as one half the profits of a sale of real estate bought by plaintiff and defendant jointly. The answer set up an agreement by defendant to sell the land and to reimburse plaintiff to the whole amount of his investment, while if the selling price were greater than the cost price the defendant was to receive the excess over the cost price as his commission for making the sale. The case was tried before Olsen, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendant. Prom an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

*Somerville <6 Hauser*and *John H. Brown,*for appellant.

*Virgil B. Seward,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 118 N. W. 1119.

PER CURIAM.

The controversy between these parties was whether plaintiff was entitled to one-half the profits realized by defendant in the sale of a quarter section of land owned by them jointly. The jury found, in accordance with the contention of the defendant; that-he had taken over plaintiff’s interest in the land at the cost price, and was entitled to the profits, if any, derived in disposing of it to another. The evidence offered by déféndant tended to support such *541an arrangement, and we find no errors in the rulings of the court in that respect, nor in the instructions to the jury. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**












**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




The
      Board
      of Directors


Echelon
      Corporation:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-125395, 333-110679, 333-62045, 333-44198, and 333-88880) of
      Echelon Corporation of our reports dated March 15, 2007, with respect to the
      consolidated balance sheets of Echelon Corporation and subsidiaries as of
      December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements
      of operations, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
      for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and
      the
      related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
      2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
      of
      December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report
      on Form 10-K of Echelon Corporation.




Our
      report on the consolidated financial statements refers to Echelon Corporation’s
      adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised
      2004), *Share-Based
      Payment,* on
      January 1, 2006.





/s/
      KPMG
      LLP




Mountain
      View, California


March
      15,
      2007
No. 10-5203.

#### Daniel Gatson, Petitioner v. Wayne Forrest.

562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 258,

178 L. Ed. 2d 171,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6838.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
An equal opportunity employer 

Thomas M. Gray 

211(b) Technical Manager 

1220 L Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20005-4070

Tel 202-682-8479 

Fax 202-682-8031 

E-mail grayt@api.org

February 23, 2010 

Karl Simon 

Division Director 

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 6406J 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: Final Submission 

for 211(b) (Docket No. A-90-07) 

Final Report: Gasoline Ethanol Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity 

Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and 

Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6127) 

Dear Mr. Karl Simon: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the 

following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of 

the testing regulation: 

• Final Report: Gasoline Ethanol Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole Body Inhalation Toxicity 

Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and 

Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6127)

The Final Report has undergone review by two independent peer-reviewers, outside QA/QC, EPA and the 211(b) 

Technical Workgroup. Therefore the report is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 

211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07). 

In the April 9, 2008 report memo, EPA requested that three additional comments on the report be addressed at the 

time of final report submission. The RG response to the EPA comments is attached to this transmittal letter. If you 

require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me. 

Regards, 

Thomas M. Gray, M.S., DABT 

Encl (2): Final report: Gasoline Ethanol Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study 

in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity 

Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6127 

 Response to EPA comments in memo dated April 9, 2008 

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
No. 10-498.

#### Theresa Noren, Petitioner v. Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company, et al.

562 U.S. 1065, 131 S. Ct. 667,

178 L. Ed. 2d 484,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9334.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 696.
#### In the Matter of Unique M. and Others, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Veronica A., Appellant; Abbott House, Respondent.

[62 NYS3d 271]

Orders of fact-finding and disposition (one for each child), Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about May 6, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the children to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that the children were permanently neglected by the mother is supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g] [i]; [7] [a]). The agency engaged in diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the mother’s relationship with the children by developing an individualized plan tailored to fit her situation and needs, including multiple referrals for domestic violence counseling, individual counseling, visitation and housing *(see e.g. Matter of Adam Mike M. [Jeffrey M.],*104 AD3d 572, 573 [1st Dept 2013]; *Matter of Irene C. [Reina M.],*68 AD3d 416 [1st Dept 2009]). Despite these diligent efforts, the mother continued to deny responsibility for and failed to gain insight into the conditions that led to the children’s removal *(see id.).*

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children *(see Matter of Star Leslie*W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The record shows that the children are in stable and loving foster homes, where their special needs are being met and their respective foster mothers want to adopt them *(see Matter of Jayvon Nathaniel L. [Natasha A.],*70 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2010]). The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment.

Concur — Renwick, J.R, Kapnick, Gesmer and Kern, JJ.
# Are you ready? Take part in America’s PrepareAthon!

/ Published Sept. 29, 2016
PHILADEPHIA, 

***This is article is part of a National Preparedness Month series.***

 Being prepared for manmade or natural hazards starts with knowing which ones to plan for at home or at work, including an active shooter, earthquake, flood or hurricane. 

America’s PrepareAthon! website

 offers a number of online resources to help you prepare for emergencies, including checklists and local activities.

Here are 10 ways to participate in America’s PrepareAthon!
        -  Sign up for local emergency alerts and warnings, download apps, and/or check access for wireless emergency alerts.  
        -  Create and test emergency communication plans. 
        -  Assemble or update emergency supply kits 
        -  Conduct a drill to practice emergency response actions for local hazards. 
        -  Plan with neighbors and coworkers to help each other and share resources. 
        -  Participate in an emergency preparedness class, training or discussion. 
        -  Conduct an exercise of a disaster scenario to review and improve your emergency plan. 
        -  Make property improvements to reduce potential injury and property damage. 
        -  Document property and obtain appropriate insurance for relevant hazards. 
        -  Collect and safeguard critical documents. 

Download the mobile FEMA App to get safety alerts, reminders and tips to survive natural disasters.
No. 10-7149.

#### Lisa J. Gillard, Petitioner v. Proven Method Seminars, LLC.

562 U.S. 1095, 131 S. Ct. 804,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9479,

178 L. Ed. 2d 537,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of

certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 549.
No. 09-11460.

#### Michael P. Ramos, Petitioner v. James Yates, Warden.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 203,

178 L. Ed. 2d 122,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7061.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 745.
# C_2013291EN.01000703.xml

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/7

---

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-78/13)

2013/C 291/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant from the EEAS office in Burundi to its headquarters in Brussels.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 15 July 2013 of the High Representative of the European Union to transfer the applicant, in the interests of the service, with immediate effect to a position in the MDR.C in Brussels; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 15 July 2013 of the High Representative of the European Union to transfer the applicant, in the interests of the service, with immediate effect to a position in the MDR.C in Brussels;

| — | declare that the EEAS committed a series of breaches of its administrative duties by adopting the contested decision, breaches which render the European Union liable; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the EEAS committed a series of breaches of its administrative duties by adopting the contested decision, breaches which render the European Union liable;

| — | declare that the contested decision causes the applicant and his spouse serious damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision causes the applicant and his spouse serious damage;

| — | take formal notice of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

take formal notice of the action;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/S/ DAVID C. KAHN
-----------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
AUGUST 2, 2005
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-15-2005

USA v. Guzman

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-3068

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Guzman" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1014.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1014
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 03-3068

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ROBINSON GUZMAN,

 Appellant

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(Dist Court No. 02-CR-00761)

District Court Judge: Hon. John C. Lifland

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 1, 2004

Before: ALITO, BARRY, and FUENTES Circuit Judges.

( Filed: June 15, 2005)

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM: 

The defendant in this case pled guilty to a one-count indictment that charged him

with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams

of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court sentenced the

defendant to 120 months of imprisonment. 

 The defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal, and defense counsel submitted a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and moved to withdraw. 

Following the decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), we issued a per

curiam opinion. We identified only one non-frivolous issue, namely, that the District

Court had sentenced the defendant on the assumption that the Sentencing Guidelines were

mandatory. We vacated the sentence imposed by the District Court and remanded for

resentencing in accordance with Booker, and we denied counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

 We later granted the government’s petition for panel rehearing, and in light of the

fact that the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by statute for the offense for which

the defendant was convicted is 10 years of imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)

and 846, we now conclude that the appeal does not present any non-frivolous issues. We

thus dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
# C_2013123EN.01003001.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/30

---

Action brought on 15 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-17/13)

2013/C 123/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, B. Cortese, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the request for employment of the applicant which was made by the OIL.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to compensate for the material damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision; to evaluate the amount corresponding to the difference, from October 2011 until such time as the applicant is recruited to function group III, between the payments corresponding to function group III and those payments which she continued to receive as a member of the contractual staff of function group II, plus corresponding interest from the due date of each months’ pay until the date of their actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate for the material damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision; to evaluate the amount corresponding to the difference, from October 2011 until such time as the applicant is recruited to function group III, between the payments corresponding to function group III and those payments which she continued to receive as a member of the contractual staff of function group II, plus corresponding interest from the due date of each months’ pay until the date of their actual payment;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
#### People v Hall

2d Dept: 145 AD3d 915 (Kings)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)