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

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Eric J. Boden, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HireRight, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, thisQuarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this Report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this Quarterly Report;

 

4.             The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)), for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisQuarterly Report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisQuarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5.             The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)           all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 7,  2008 | By:    | /s/ ERIC J. BODEN          |
|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                               |   | Eric J. Boden              |
| * *                           |   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
# SPEC Learjet Model 25 Research AircraftEquipped for Cloud Physics Research with State-ofthe-Art Instrumentation and Available for Research

# SPEC Learjet Performance in Research Configuration

Maximum Takeoff Weight 15,000 lbs Maximum Certificated Ceiling 45,000 ft

Time to Climb S.L. to 0  C (5 km 16,450 ft DA) at Maximum T.O. Weight @ ISA 3 min

Time to Climb 0  C to -10  C (5 km 16,450 ft to 7.24 km 23,760 PA) @ ISA 2.5 min

Maximum Duration 3 hr Maximum Airspeed 0.82 Mach (306 KIAS) Number of Seats excluding pilots 6

Electrical Capability (2) 400 A Generators @ 28.8 VDC = 23 KW Research Power = 7.2 KW distributed as 5.5 KW @ 110 VAC 60 Hz 1.7 KW @ 28 VDC



# Equipment List Manufacturer Range Accuracy

Temperature Rosemount Model 102 & 510BH Amplifier -50 to +50  C 0.5  C

Altitude RVSM 0 to 45,000 ft (0 to 13.7 km) 60 ft (18.3 m) Airspeed RVSM 0 to 220 m s - 1 1 m s - 1

Cloud Liquid Water (2) Sky Tech Nevzorov LWC Probe 0 to 4 g m - 3 N/A

Cloud Total Water (2) Sky Tech Nevzorov TWC Probe 0 to 4 g m - 3 N/A

Aircraft Position Aventech AIMMS-20 Differential GPS N/A 10 m

Aircraft Heading Learjet Sperry Directional Gyro 0 to 360  1 

Horizontal Wind Aventech AIMMS - 20 0 to 360  1 to 100 m s -1 1  1 m s -1

Vertical Wind Aventech AIMMS - 20 0 to 50 m s - 1 0.5 m s - 1

2D-S (Stereo) Optical Array Spectrometer SPEC Model OAP 2D-S 10  m to 3 mm 10  m

Fast Cloud Droplet Probe (FCDP) SPEC Model FCDP-100 2 to 50  m 2  m

Fast Forward Scattering Spectrometer Probe (FFSSP) SPEC Model FFSSP-100 2 to 50  m 2  m

High Volume Precipitation Spectrometer (HVPS) SPEC Version-3 HVPS 150  m to 2 cm 150  m

Combination 2D-S and Version 2.5 CPI (3V-CPI) SPEC model 3V-CPI 7  m to 3000  m 2.3  m
TS-CKHI02

Attachment #3

Pt. 1, Sec. B 

CAS Inventory Expert Service Report and Chemical Structure of the New Chemical 

Substance 

The following page gives the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Report on the new 

chemical substance. Also, attached here is the chemical structure of the compound.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1639** 

CANDELARIO LARA, a/k/a Lara Candelario , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : December 17, 2013 Decided: December 31, 2013

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland , for Petitioner . Stuart F. Deler y, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Joanna L. Watson , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Candelario Lara , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petition s for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Lara’s merits hearing and
the supporting evide nce. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the Board’s dismissal. S ee
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006) ; INS v. Elias

– Zacarias , 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992). We further conclude that Lara was statutorily ineligible for TPS relief as a result of his two misdemeanor
convictions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c ) (2)(B). We find no merit to his claim that he is eligible for an exception because the
two convictions a rose from a single scheme of criminal conduct. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
CHARLESTON.

#### State *ex rel.*Mrs. W. H. Surgeon *v.*Levi Jones, *Justice, Etc.*

(No. 6357)

Submitted January 9, 1929.

Decided January 15, 1929.

*Thomas West,*for relator.

*Scott, Graham & Wiswell,*for respondent.

*562Hatcher, Judge:

The petitioner was plaintiff in a ease before a justice in which she obtained a judgment on July 14, 1928. On July 23rd, the defendant filed an affidavit stating that new material evidence had been discovered and praying for a new hearing. On July 27th, the defendant executed bond for the protection of the petitioner and served notice upon petitioner that on August 1st, a motion to vacate the judgment would be made. On August 1st, the motion was made, the judgment set aside and a new trial awarded.

This is an action in mandamus in which petitioner seeks to have the justice commanded to vacate his order of August 1st, (erroneously referred to in the petition as entered on July 31st), and required to reinstate and issue execution on his original judgment entered July 14th.

The statute relative to the vacation of a judgment, by a justice is section 115, chapter 50, Code, which is as follows:

> “In any case tried without a jury, in which it is not otherwise herein provided, the justice who rendered the judgment, may, on motion of either party, the other, his agent or attorney, being present, or having had reasonable notice of the motion, set aside the judgment within two weeks after it is entered, and grant a new trial on such terms and conditions as he sees fit to impose. But this shall only be done when the justice is satisfied that injustice was done by the judgment to the party by whom the motion is made.”

The jurisdiction of the justice to act upon such a motion, being purely statutory, must be exercised within the statutory period of two weeks. 35 C. J., p. 678, section 308. The return of thé justice attempts to justify the order of August 1st, as follows: “This court (i. e. the justice) being of opinion that inasmuch as motion was properly made to him before the expiration of two weeks after the entering of said judgment (i. e. July 14th) that the court had jurisdiction of said action.” The return is in error in that statement. "While notice of the vacating motion was given within the fortnight following July 14th, the motion itself was not made until August 1st, three days after that period had expired. *563The justice confused notice of motion with the motion itself. The notice is one step in procedure, the motion another. The notice is given to the litigant — the motion is made before the justice. When the notice was given in this case the motion had not yet been made. It did not exist until August 1st, on which date the justice had no jurisdiction under the statute to entertain it. The peremptory writ will therefore issue.

*Writ granted.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5439]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Site Visit review of the Materials Research Science and 
Engineering Center (MRSEC) at the University of Oklahoma and 
University of Arkansas, also Called Center for Semiconductor Physics 
in Nanostructures (C-SPIN), by NSF Division of Materials Research 
(DMR) <greek-i>1203.
    Dates & Times: April 6, 2009; 7:30 a.m.-9 p.m., April 7, 2009; 8 
a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
    Type of Meeting: Part-open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Z. Charles Ying, Program Director, Materials 
Research Science and Engineering Centers Program, Division of 
Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-8428.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning further support of the MRSEC at the University of 
Oklahoma and University of Arkansas.

Agenda

Monday, April 6, 2009

7:30 a.m.-9 a.m. Closed--Executive Session.
9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Open--Review of the OU/UA. MRSEC
4:30 p.m.-6 p.m. Closed--Executive Session.
6 p.m.-9 p.m. Open--Poster Session and Dinner.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

8 a.m.-9 a.m. Closed--Executive Session.
9 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Open--Review of the OU/UA MRSEC.
10:15 a.m.-3:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session, Draft and Review 
Report.
    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 10, 2009.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-5439 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby
certifies in his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") that
the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the financial information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.

|Date: | May 13, 2003 | By:  | /s/ John R. SchrollJohn R. SchrollPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|----- | ------------ | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |              |      |                                                                        
|Date: | May 13, 2003 | And: | /s/ William C. KurtzWilliam C. KurtzSenior Vice President and Treasurer
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 of Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of
the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted 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) 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 Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		November 14, 2006






























? 6 ?


MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER CAMPBELL L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)







- 49 -
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 13 - 00032 - CR

________________________ REGINALD DWAYNE MELTON , APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law Navarro County, Texas Tri a l Court No. C34415 - CR ; Honorable Amanda Putman , Presiding 

### August 12 , 2013 ORDER Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Reginald Dwayne Melton, was convicted of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, penalty group one, under one gram, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, and was sentenced by a jury to fifteen years confinement and a fine of $15,000. 1 The trial court entered a judgment assessing a sentence of fifteen years

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . §§ 12.42( a), 481.115( b ) and 481.134(d) ( W EST 2010 and W EST S UPP . 2012 ) . Accordin gly, the offense was punishable by confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for2 confinement and a fine of $10,000. A ppellant filed his brief on May 16, 2013. Among the issues raised by Appellant is the contention that the trial court erred by reforming the sentence contained in the jury’s verdict. The State’s reply brief was due on or before June 17, 2013. 2 T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6( b). The State has not favored us with a brief, nor has it requested additional time in which to do so. While the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly guide us as to what to do if an appellant fails to file a brief, there is no corresponding rule to guide us when the State fails to file a brief. Several intermediate appellate courts, including this Court have held that when the State fails to file a brief, an appellate court should conduct an independent analysis of the merits of the appellant’s claim of error, limited to the arguments raised at trial by the State. See Little v. State , 246 S.W.3d 39 1, 397 - 98 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 2008, no pet.). In this case, the State has heretofore argued that the jury charge at the punishment phase permitted the entry of a verdict not authorized by the law . While the rules of appellate procedure do not require the State to file a brief, under the unique circumstances of this case, we believe an appellate court may certainly order that a brief be filed. Accordingly, the State is ordered to file a reply brief within thirty days of the date of this order. Pe r Curiam Campbell, J., concurring in result. any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years and by a fine not to exceed $10,000. T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.33 ( W EST 2011 ). 2 Because the 3 0 th day following the date Appellant’s brief was filed was Saturday, June 15, the due date for the State’s reply brief was extended to Monday, June 17. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4. 1( a).
```

Exhibit 32.1
Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                            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 of World Health Alternatives, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
E. McDonald, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
          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 result of operations of the
          Company.

/s/ Richard E. McDonald
Richard E. McDonald
Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2003
```
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. ED 105830

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: September 18, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Samuel E. Buffaloe, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Julia E. Neidhardt, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Williams appeals from the judgment entered after a jury trial on his convictions for two counts of assault in the first degree causing serious physical injury, one count of shooting a firearm from a *660motor vehicle and three counts of armed criminal action. There was no plain error in admitting photographs of the victims' injuries. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

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

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of United Wisconsin GrainProducers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, J.F. Robertson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   |   |   | /s/ J. F. Robertson                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | J. F. Robertson  Chief Executive Officer  Dated:  November 14, 2006 |
|   |   |   |                                                                     |

 

----
No. 92-618 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, 

### v. RANDEL C. ROMERO, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: DistrictCourt of theThirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable G. Todd Baugh, Judgepresiding.

COUNSELOF RECORD: For Appellant: Curtis L. Bevolden, Yellowstone County Public Defenders, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Cregg W. Coughlin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena,Montana; Dennis Paxinos,Yellowstone County Attorney, Russell C. Fagg, Deputy Yellowstone County Attorney, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 20, 1993
SERVED OCTOBER28, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF DELTA AIRLINES, INC. DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0814 (Civil Penalty Action)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014S0670010) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Jon-Peter F. Kelly, Respondent's Counsel 

### Assistant General Counsel Delta Air Lines, Inc. Department 981 1030 Delta Boulevard Atlanta, GA 30354-1989 TEL: 404-714-9631 FAX: 404-677-2972 ONE COPY



### Christopher R. 

### Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2014-0814 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2