alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Edwin G. Marshall, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007;  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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and 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 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer=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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer=s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer=s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer=s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer=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 small business issuer=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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: July 3, 2008  /s/Edwin G. Marshall Edwin G. Marshall, Principal Executive Officer
From: "Johnson, Katrina M."

To: DioxinInteragency@EPA

Cc: <Sarah.Bittleman >, Peter Preuss

Date: 03/26/2010 04:52 PM Subject: RE: DIOXIN: Interagency Science Consultation -- Dra ft Response to Comments Report

Below are USDA’s comments on EPA’s Response to “Hea lth Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment” pub lished by the National Research Council of the

National Academies:

• USDA found the EPA response to the National Academi es’ report and recommendations to be very thorough, well written, and well documented. The document provides the transparency and clarity on EPA positions that the National Academie s requested.

• USDA does not have specific comments to offer regar ding EPA’s response. USDA feels the document is ready for independent external peer rev iew and public review and comment as per EPA’s suggested plan.

We are also including a copy of our journal article , a statistically based survey of dioxins and dioxi n-like compounds in domestic meat and poultry that was con ducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture from September 2007 to September 2008.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

Katrina

Katrina Johnson | Office of Budget and Program Analysis | Progra m Analyst

___________________________________________________ ______________________________________ US Department of Agriculture |
Motion Granted in Part and Continuing Abatement Order filed July 26 , 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 0 0739

- CV

____________ KEN S. OGBONNIA d/b/a FIRST TEXAS ENERGY , Appellant

V.
A T & T ADVERTISING, LP , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 988333



### C O N T I N U I N G A B A T E M E N T O R D E R

On April 17 , 20 12 , this court ordered appellant to obtain counsel to represent the appellant

- corporation, First Texas Energy Corporation, on or before May 14, 2012. In addition, the court ordered appellant to file a corrected brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appe llate Procedure. On May 14, 2012, appellant requested an additional sixty days to obtain counsel. The court granted the motion and abated the appeal for sixty days until July 23, 2012.2

On July 23, 2012, appellant requested an additional sixty days in w hich to hire counsel. Appellee filed a re s ponse in opposition to a third extension of time.

The court GRANTS a FINAL extension of time for thirty days to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant may proceed

pro se in his individual appeal, if he is unable to obtain counsel. NO FURTHER
EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. If an amended brief in compliance with the rules is not filed by AUGUST 27, 2012, as ordered herein, the appeal will be dismissed.
See Tex . R. App. P. 42.3(c).
The appeal remains ABATED , treated as a clos ed case, and removed from this

c ourt = s active docket until August 27 , 2012

. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt = s active docket at that time, or when appellant’s amended brief is fi led

. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
# Official Journal L 268/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 268 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6427 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 268

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6427 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/1221 of 20 July 2021 on the reconfirmation of the authorisation of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI/2/2021) | 1 |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1222 of 20 July 2021 establishing a ‘Practical Handbook’ on European cooperation on coast guard functions | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/1221 of 20 July 2021 on the reconfirmation of the authorisation of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI/2/2021)

1

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1222 of 20 July 2021 establishing a ‘Practical Handbook’ on European cooperation on coast guard functions

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 32
----------

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Steven B. Solomon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of CT Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of CT Holdings, Inc.

/s/ STEVEN B. SOLOMON
---------------------
Steven B. Solomon
Chief Executive Officer
November 18, 2005



I, Richard Connelly, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of CT Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of CT Holdings, Inc.

/s/ RICHARD CONNELLY
--------------------
Richard Connelly
Chief Financial Officer
November 18, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert A. Virtue, President of Virco Mfg. Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge: 1. the Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: December 10, 2004
    /s/  Robert A. VirtueRobert A. VirtuePresident of Virco Mfg. Corporation I, Robert E. Dose, Vice President of Finance of Virco Mfg. Corporation (the Company), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge: 1. the Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: December 10, 2004

/s/
Robert E. DoseRobert E. DoseVice President of Finance of Virco Mfg. Corporation This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
A.L., The Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3173

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 18, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, M. H. McIlvain, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Golden Chief
Resources, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
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. I am 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 we 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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
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.




Date: September 21, 2005

By:  /s/ M. H. McIlvain
     ---------------------------------------
         M. H. McIlvain
         President & Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1744

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Robert Oscar Schultz,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

 ____________

 Submitted: May 23, 2019

Filed: June 5, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Schultz appeals the amended judgment entered by the district court1in

his criminal case following the grant of relief on one of the claims raised in his post1The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.
conviction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court vacated a

conviction and a concomitant concurrent sentence and $100 special assessment. For

reversal, Schultz argues that the district court was required to conduct a hearing

before taking this action. We disagree.

Section 2255 gives district courts “broad and flexible remedial authority” to

correct a sentence as appropriate. See United States v. Harrison, 113 F.3d 135, 137

(8th Cir. 1997). In this case, the district court made statements at the original

sentencing hearing reflecting the court’s awareness of a potential, but likely

inconsequential, double jeopardy issue, given that the concurrent sentences were

triggered by a more serious offense. Under those circumstances, we reject Schultz’s

request to vacate the district court’s amended judgment and remand for a plenary

resentencing hearing. See United States v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460, 469 (8th Cir.

2012); James v. United States, 476 F.2d 936, 937 (8th Cir. 1973) (per curiam).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSE LUIS CASTILLO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50278

D.C. No. 3:10

- cr

- 05124

- BEN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

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

Jose Luis Castillo appeals from the distri ct court’ s judgment and challenges

the 12

- month sentence imposed upon re vocation of supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for de cision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50278

Castillo contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). The high

- end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e ) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including Castillo’s multiple violations of supervised release. See Gall , 552 U.S.

at 51 . Moreover, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the record reflects that the

district court considered his mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the

sentence. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

To the extent that Castillo claims that the district cour t improperly considered the

entire petition to revoke, rather than solely the admitted allegation, he cannot

establish plain error. See United States v. Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 761

- 62 (9th Cir.

2008). His counsel stipulated that the court could consider the entire petition.

AFFIRMED.
#### Melvin Ka YU, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 03-16721.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Melvin Ka Yu, CSPSOL — California State Prison (Solano), Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Denise Alayne Yates, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Melvin Ka Yu appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging a prison disciplinary finding that he participated in a riot, in violation of CaLCode Regs. tit. 15, § 3005(c). We *162have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Yu contends that the disciplinary hearing finding, which resulted in the revocation of 90 days of good time credit, was a violation of his due process rights because it was supported by insufficient evidence. Procedural due process demands that the findings of a prison disciplinary board are “supported by *some evidence*in the record.” *See Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (emphasis added). We conclude that the California Superior Court’s determination that sufficient evidence supported the disciplinary hearing officer’s finding was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *id.*at 453-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768.

To the extent that Yu raises uncertified issues, we construe it as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability, and we deny the motion. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104 — 05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

The motion for judgment filed on February 11, 2004 and docketed as the reply brief is denied.

The Clerk shall file the “traverse,” received on March 1, 2004, as the reply brief. Yu’s requests for counsel and for an evidentiary hearing, raised in the reply brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony M. Marlon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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/ Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.		**		**	

Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.					

Chief Executive Officer

August 15, 2003**	**
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 077

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)