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

EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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,  John Gentile,  Interim President,  Chief Operating Officer and
principal executive officer of Essential Reality, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,  that: The Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2002 of the Company (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.

                              --------------------------------------
                              John Gentile,  Interim  President,
                              Chief Operating  Officer and Director
                              (principal executive officer)

June __, 2003


<PAGE>
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-155364on Form S-3 and in the Registration Statements No. 333-58298, No. 333-129152,and No. 333-147448 on Form S-8, of our reports dated February 27,2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financialstatement schedule of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. and subsidiaries (the“Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofOrient-Express Hotels Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,2008.

 

 
| /s/  Deloitte LLP       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| London,  England        |   |
| February 27,  2009 |   |

 

----
Ricky BRUCE v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden

No. 2018-KP-1422

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. CHARLES**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error in the court of appeal's denial of writs on technical grounds. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
# C_2021422EN.01003901.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/39

---

Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab)

(Case T-418/20) (1)

(2021/C 422/53)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

STEVEN G. GREGORY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-30010

D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00197-BLW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Steven G. Gregory appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for bankruptcy fraud (asset

concealment) and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 152(1). 

FILED

OCT 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gregory’s pro se request for

oral argument is denied.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gregory’s counsel has filed

a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

as counsel of record. Gregory has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering

brief has been filed.

Gregory waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

We decline to review Gregory’s pro se ineffective assistance of counsel

claims on direct appeal because this is not one of the “unusual cases where (1) the

record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or

(2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his

Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257,

1260 (9th Cir. 2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Gregory’s pro se motions to expedite this appeal and for a stay of

incarceration pending appeal are DENIED as moot.

DISMISSED.

2 15-30010
Exhibit 23.1

NOTICE REGARDING LACK OF CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

The consolidated financial statements of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
which are incorporated by reference into the Registrant's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No.'s: 333-67086, 333-101321 and
333-99237), have been audited by Luboshitz Kasierer Arthur Andersen, independent public accountants ("AA").

However,
after reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain from Arthur Andersen a reissued audit report with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001. In accordance with regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company has filed with this Annual Report on
Form 10-K a copy of the previously-issued audit report dated February 6, 2002 of Arthur Andersen with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

Because
this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference into the Company's registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-67086, 333-101321 and 333-99237), it is deemed to be a new registration statement relating to the securities offered therein. After reasonable efforts, the Company has been
unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the incorporation by reference of its previously-issued audit reports into this Annual Report. As a result, Arthur Andersen may not have any
liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") for any untrue statement of a material fact contained in the 2001 financials or any omissions of a material
fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, persons acquiring securities under those registration statements may be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of
the Securities Act.

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

BDO — Pazos, López deRomaña, Rodriguez S.C.

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3(No. 333-165092) and in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8(No. 333-58298, No. 333-129152, No. 333-147448 and No. 333-161459),of our reports dated June 4, 2010 relating to the financial statements ofPerurail S.A. and Ferrocarril Transandino S.A. and the combined financialstatements of Peru OEH S.A. and Peru OEH Machu Picchu S.A., which appear inthis Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report onForm 10-K of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. and subsidiaries for the yearended December 31, 2009.

 

Pazos, López deRomaña, Rodriguez S.C.

Lima, Peru

June 17, 2010

 
| Countersigned by:                      |   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                   |   |   |
| /s/  MANUEL PAZOS VÉLEZ           |   |   |
| Manuel  Pazos Vélez               |   |   |
| Certified  Chartered Public Accountant |   |   |
| Register No. 01-05095                  |   |   |

 

 

----
Desmond MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[4910-13]

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Pursuant to section 10(A) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law

92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering 

and Development (R,E&D) Advisory Committee.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration

ACTION: Notice of Meeting

NAME: Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee

TIME AND DATE: April 17 – 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

PLACE: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW – Round Room (10th

Floor), Washington, DC 20591

PURPOSE: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the Committee guidance for 

FAA’s research and development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft 

safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the interested public 

but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the meeting or obtain information should 

contact Gloria Dunderman at (202) 267-8937 or gloria.dunderman@faa.gov. Members of the 

public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC on March 19, 2014.

Gloria Dunderman

Management & Program Analyst
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 107151-107152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Beeson applications review.
    Date: February 25, 2025.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 
8B, Rockville, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Gianina Ramona Dumitrescu, Ph.D., MPH, 
Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, National

[[Page 107152]]

Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 
20892, (301) 827-0696, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 26, 2024.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-31423 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Page 1 of 3

United States Department of Justice 

Office of the United States Trustee 

1100 Commerce St. Room 976 

Dallas, Texas 75242 

(214) 767-1080 

Lisa L. Lambert, 

for the United States Trustee 

Lisa.L.Lambert@usdoj.gov 

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

In re: § 

 § Case No. 24-80040-SGJ-11 

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., § 

 § 

 § CHAPTER 11 

 § Hearings 04/23/24 at 9:30 am 

 § 

Debtors-in-Possession. § Jointly Administered 

 

 

United States Trustee’s Comment to Motion to Use Cash Collateral and 

Motion to Sell Zovinky Assets 

(Docket Nos. 13, 16) 

TO THE HONORABLE STACEY G. JERNIGAN, 

CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT: 

Kevin M. Epstein, the United States Trustee for Region 6 (“United States 

Trustee”), comments as follows on the Motion to Use Cash Collateral (docket entry 13) 

and the Motion to Sell Zovniky Assets (docket entry 16): 

1. The United States Trustee does not oppose cash collateral relief or the sale of the 

Zovniky Assets but comments solely on any venue language in the proposed orders. 

Case 24-80040-sgj11 Doc 146 Filed 04/22/24 Entered 04/22/24 14:17:54 Desc

Main Document Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

2. Based on the four-corners of the petition in this bankruptcy case and on filed 

declarations, the United States Trustee filed an emergency motion to dismiss or transfer, 

contending that venue is improper in these cases. 

3. By email, the Court informed the parties that the venue issues could not be 

considered before the hearings set for April 23 and that the venue motion would be set for 

hearing on May 7, 2024. 

4. Because the United States Trustee has challenged venue and because that venue 

hearing is set for May 7, 2024, the United States Trustee requests that the Court exclude 

any findings regarding venue in any further cash collateral order or any sale order and that 

the Court specify that these issues are reserved for the May 7, 2024, hearing. 

Conclusion 

 The United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court tailor any final cash 

collateral or Zovniky final order by specifying that venue will be tried, in all respects, on 

May 7, 2024. The United States Trustee further respectfully requests that the Court grant 

any other relief to which he might be entitled. 

DATED: April 11, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

KEVIN M. EPSTEIN 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE 

/s/ Lisa L. Lambert 

Lisa L. Lambert 

Asst. U.S. Trustee 

Texas State Bar No. 11844250 (Also by New York) 

Office of the United States Trustee 

1100 Commerce Street, Room 976 

Dallas, Texas 75242 

(214) 767-1080 

Lisa.L.Lambert@usdoj.gov 

Case 24-80040-sgj11 Doc 146 Filed 04/22/24 Entered 04/22/24 14:17:54 Desc

Main Document Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

 

Certificate of Service 

 I certify that on April 22, 2024, I sent this comment by notice through ECF. 

 /s/ Lisa.L. Lambert 

 Lisa L. Lambert 

Case 24-80040-sgj11 Doc 146 Filed 04/22/24 Entered 04/22/24 14:17:54 Desc

Main Document Page 3 of 3
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Millennium Quest, Inc.
File No. 0-31619

                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       as adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 -
                   Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Millennium Quest,  Inc.  (Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ended March 31, 2007,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Si Chen, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as
pursuant to Section 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; and
     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
          Company.


Dated: May 17, 2007                              By: /s/ Si Chen
       --- --- ----                              -------------------------------
                                                         Si Chen
                                                         Chief Executive Officer





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Millennium Quest,  Inc.  (Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ended March 31, 2007,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (Report),  I, Huanxiang Cheng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
adopted as pursuant to Section 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; and
     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
          Company.


Dated: May 11, 2007                             By:  /s/ Huanxiang Cheng
       --- --- ----                             --------------------------------
                                                         Huanxiang Cheng
                                                         Chief Financial Officer




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Millennium  Quest,  Inc. and will be retained by  Millennium  Quest,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
Balloon Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-11A) Addendum:

Student Pilot Applicant Requirements (SPAR)

The purpose of this addendum is to provide updated information regarding student pilot 

applicant requirements (SPAR) based on regulatory and procedural changes that will become

effective on April 1, 2016. These changes will be incorporated into the handbook in the next 

revision.

Presolo Knowledge Tests (page 10-19)

Current text:

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 requires the satisfactory 

completion of a presolo knowledge test prior to solo flight. The presolo knowledge test is 

required to be administered, graded, and all incorrect answers reviewed by the instructor 

providing the training prior to endorsing the student pilot certificate and logbook for solo 

flight. The regulation states that the presolo knowledge test must include questions applicable to 

14 CFR parts 61 and 91 and on the flight characteristics and operational limitations of the make 

and model aircraft to be flown.

Updated text:

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 requires the satisfactory 

completion of a presolo knowledge test prior to solo flight. The presolo knowledge test is 

required to be administered, graded, and all incorrect answers reviewed by the instructor 

providing the training prior to endorsing the student pilot log book. The regulation states that 

the presolo knowledge test must include questions applicable to 14 CFR parts 61 and 91 and on 

the flight characteristics and operational limitations of the make and model aircraft to be flown.

Appendix E: Log Book Endorsement Formats (page E-1)

The entire Pre-solo Flight Training: 14 CFR section 61.87(c) section should be deleted.

Current text:

Solo Endorsement (each 90-day period): 14 CFR section 61.87(p) I have given Mr./Mrs./Ms. 

[First name, MI, Last name] the instruction required by 14 CFR section 61.87(p). [He or She] 

has met the requirements of 14 CFR section 61.87(p) and is competent to make safe solo flights 

in a [make and model aircraft]. Signature, Certificate #, Date Note: additional 90-day 

endorsements are recorded in the student’s log book only, not on back of the Student Pilot 

Certificate. 

Updated text

Solo Endorsement (each 90-day period): 14 CFR section 61.87(p) I have given Mr./Mrs./Ms. 

[First name, MI, Last name] the instruction required by 14 CFR section 61.87(p). [He or She] 

has met the requirements of 14 CFR section 61.87(p) and is competent to make safe solo flights 

in a [make and model aircraft]. Signature, Certificate #, Date Note: additional 90-day 

endorsements are recorded in the student’s log book.
# C_2021053EN.01001701.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 20 October 2020 — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, and Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

(Case C-532/20)

(2021/C 53/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Alstom Transport SA

Respondents: Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, and Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

Question referred

Are the third subparagraph of Article 1(1), Article 1(3) and Article 2c of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the period within which the successful tenderer in an award procedure may apply for review of the decision of the contracting authority declaring admissible the bid submitted by a tenderer placed lower in the ranking must be calculated by reference to the date on which the interest of the successful tenderer arose, that is, upon the lodging by the unsuccessful tenderer of an action against the outcome of the award procedure?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14.

---
Charles Allen FOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lynda Lorraine ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2219

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.