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



SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Harry Chew, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4. The Registrant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 Registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure

controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that

material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated

subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,

particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and

procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the

effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of

the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent

fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an

annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial

reporting; and



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

summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting.



/s/ Harry CHew

Harry Chew

Chief Executive Officer

May 29, 2008
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



In connection with this Annual Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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) 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: November 18, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |
#### DURANT, Respondent, v. DURANT et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1898).

Action by Howard M. Durant against Frederick O. Durant, Clara E. Durant, and William Maddox, assignee.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# C_2019172EN.01001002.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

(Case C-108/19)

(2019/C 172/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Respondents: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

Question referred

In the context of the sale of goods through an online retail outlet, is Article 33 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as not applying in the situation where the customer directly enters into a contract with the carrier for the transport of the goods from the Member State of the supplier to his own Member State, in accordance with the dispatching options offered by the supplier, and the goods are not transported on behalf of the supplier?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
# C_2019155EN.01002101.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2019 — Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña, S.A. v Ayuntamiento de A Coruña

(Case C-45/19)

(2019/C 155/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo A Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña, S.A.

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de A Coruña

Question referred

Having regard to Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, (1) does the maximum term of 30 years for contracts referred to therein begin to run: (a) when the contract is awarded or entered into; (b) on the entry into force of the aforesaid provision; (c) on the day following the expiry of the transitional period established in Article 8(2) of that regulation (3 December 2019), or (d) on any other date deemed correct by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 23.1






CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-91700 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 30, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Aéropostale, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”), (which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
Company’s adoption of (1) Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation
No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes,effective February 4, 2007, and (2)
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, relating to the
recognition and related disclosure provisions, effective February 3, 2007)
and of our report dated March 30, 2009, relating to the effectiveness of the
Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Aéropostale, Inc. and its subsidiaries for the year ended
January 31, 2009.






/s/
Deloitte and Touche LLP






New York,
New York






March 30,
2009










55
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Perrine, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), imposed July 19, 1984.

Sentence affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s assertions, we do not find the sentence imposed to be unduly harsh or excessive. In addition, we conclude that defendant’s application for vacatur of the imposed mandatory surcharge of $75 on the ground of indigency (CPL 420.35) is premature *(see, People v West,*124 Misc 2d 622). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
exhibit10-28.htm

 








ICO, INC. CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN

 

Participation Agreement

Date:  October 7, 2009

 

To:   Donald Eric Parsons

 

The purpose of this Participation Agreement is to confirm your participation in the ICO, Inc. Change in Control Severance Plan (the “Plan”), subject to your executing of this Participation Agreement and returning it to the Company within ten business days after the date set forth above.  Any capitalized terms not
used herein and not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Plan.

 

The Severance Benefit for which you may be eligible pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Plan shall mean 200% of your annual base salary as of the date when a Change in Control occurs (i.e. your base salary multiplied by two (2)).  In addition, the Company will pay or reimburse 100% of your premiums at the rate applicable to you for
your and your dependents’ continued coverage, pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), under the Company’s medical and dental plans to the extent that you and your dependents are participants in such plans immediately prior to your termination, and provided that you elect COBRA continuation coverage, for up to twelve months following termination.

 

For purposes of the definition of “Good Reason” under the Plan, a material change in the geographic location at which you must perform services includes a change in your primary work location to a location that is more than 50 miles from its prior location.

 

As set forth in Section 5 of the Plan, (i) if the aggregate of payments due under this Plan is greater than amounts owed to you under any other agreement and/or severance or separation plan or policy applicable to you (“Other Plan”), then payments made to you under this Plan shall be in lieu of payments owed under such Other
Plan, and (ii) if the aggregate of payments due under this Plan is less than amounts owed under any Other Plan applicable to you, then payments made under the Other Plan shall be in lieu of payments under this Plan.  In the event that you become entitled to and are paid payments under an Other Plan, and subsequently become entitled to payments under this Plan, then the amounts due to you under this Plan shall be reduced by the amounts previously paid to you under the Other Plan.  For the avoidance
of doubt it is noted that the Company’s incentive compensation plans (pursuant to which employees may be awarded stock options or restricted shares) and 401(k) plan are not within the definition of “Other Plan” for the purpose of this paragraph.

 

Further details and requirements related to your Severance Benefit are set forth in the Plan, which is attached to and incorporated into this Participation Agreement.

 


	
ICO, Inc.
	  
	
By:
	
/s/ A. John Knapp, Jr.

	  	
A. John Knapp, Jr..

	  	
President and C.E.O.








 


	
Accepted and agreed to by:

	  	  
	
By:
	
/s/ Donald Eric Parsons

	  	
Donald Eric Parsons

	
Date:
	
October 7, 2009

	
Attachment: Change in Control Severance Plan
#### Saidou DIA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent.

No. 07-5587-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2009.

Theodore Vialet, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kelly J. Walls, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Saidou Dia, a native and citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a November 28, 2007 order of the BIA affirming the February 1, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams which denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Dia, Saidou,*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2007), *aff'g*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City, Feb. 1, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

In addition to statutory requirement that petitioners exhaust each category of relief, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), this Court generally will not consider arguments regarding individual issues that were not exhausted before the agency. *Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1, 122-23 (2d Cir.2007). This judicially-imposed exhaustion requirement is mandatory. *Id.*at 119-120. In particular, a petitioner must challenge all findings that are dispositive of his claims; failure to do so is fatal to his petition for review. *See*
      *636
      *Steevenez v. Gonzales,*476 F.3d 114, 117-18 (2d Cir.2007).

In his appeal to the BIA, Dia argued that although the IJ found him not credible, the IJ “failed to cite any statements or parts of his testimony that would lead to such finding.” In fact, the IJ found several inconsistencies between Dia’s testimony and asylum applications, and noted significant omissions from his asylum application. While Dia argued that the IJ erred in rejecting his refugee card and birth certificate, the IJ had made no such findings. As the BIA obseived, Dia’s appeal was not responsive to the various bases for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Thus, Dia failed to exhaust any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.

Because Dia failed to exhaust his challenges to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and because that finding was a dispositive basis for the denial of Dia’s applications for relief, we deny the petition for review. *See Steevenez v. Gonzales,*476 F.3d 114,117-118 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
#### Gordy *v.*The State.

*Assault to Rape.*

(Decided Feb. 13, 1908.

45 South. 901.)

1. *Courts; Terms; Judgment.*— A judgment rendered at a term of the court not authorized by law is void for want of jurisdiction.

2. *Criminal Law; Appeal; Judgment to Support.*— A void judgment will not «support an appeal.

Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

Pettus Gordy was convicted of crime and appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

O. E. O. Timmerman, for appellant. — -No 'brief came to tbe Reporter.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for tbe State.

DENSON, J.

The indictment in tbis case was found, and tbe triad and conviction of tbe defendant were bad, at a term of tbe circuit court for Autauga county beld at a time not.authorized by law; hence tbe proceedings were void. Tbe judgment will not support an appeal, and tbis appeal must be *dismissed.*— Louisville & *Nashville Railroad Co. v. J. J. Grant,*153 Ala. 112, 45 South. 226; *Bill Rigsby, alias, etc. v. State,*153 Ala. 37, 45 South. 227.

Appeal dismissed.

Tyson, O. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ-., concur.
Exhibit 10.1

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), dated and effective as of September 30,
2002, is entered into by and between Avatex Corporation (the "Company"), and Grady E. Schleier
("Employee").

The
Company and Employee hereby agree that this Amendment amends the Employment Agreement dated and effective as of November 12, 1996, as amended by the Amendment thereto dated as
of February 1, 1998, and the Second Amendment thereto dated as of September 1, 1999, and the Third Amendment thereto dated as of September 25, 2001 by and between the Company and
Employee (the "Agreement"), as follows:

1.    A
new Section 18 of the Agreement is hereby added with the following:





2.    Except
as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective on the date and year first above written.

|AVATEX CORPORATION |                                             | Grady E. Schleier
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------- | -----------------
|By:                |                                             |                  
|                   | Melvyn J. Estrin
Co-Chief Executive Officer |                  

---

QuickLinks
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 793 

To allow the Corps of Engineers to use certain amounts to carry out harbor 

deepening projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To allow the Corps of Engineers to use certain amounts 

to carry out harbor deepening projects. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CORPS OF ENGINEERS HARBOR DEEPENING 

4 PROJECTS. 

5 The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

6 of Engineers, shall prioritize the use of amounts made 

7 available to the Secretary for General Investigations to 

8 carry out harbor deepening projects, including harbor 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 793 IS

1 deepening projects that are prepared and ready to begin 

2 first-year feasibility study-related activities. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.G., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.M., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 337 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M.G., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.M., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 338 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Howard C. Birndorf, 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:



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



|             |  |  |  |                                                                      
|------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  |  |  |                                                                      
|             |  | 
|May 10, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ HOWARD C. BIRNDORF                                               
|             |  |  |  | Howard C. Birndorf Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019206EN.01003401.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 2 April 2019 — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

(Case C-275/19)

(2019/C 206/39)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd

Respondents: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

Questions referred

| 1. | Given that the Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 442/89 of 2 December 1989, should those provisions ‒ more specifically Article 3 (using the wording shown) and Article 9 mentioned below ‒ be unenforceable, and can individuals rely on that lack of enforceability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given that the Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 442/89 of 2 December 1989, should those provisions ‒ more specifically Article 3 (using the wording shown) and Article 9 mentioned below ‒ be unenforceable, and can individuals rely on that lack of enforceability?

| 2. | Given that the Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003, should those provisions ‒ more specifically Article 2 and Article 3 mentioned below ‒ be unenforceable as against service providers in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given that the Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003, should those provisions ‒ more specifically Article 2 and Article 3 mentioned below ‒ be unenforceable as against service providers in Portugal?

---