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

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

CERTIFICATION

I, John W. Whitney, Chief Executive Officer of ITRONICS INC. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ITRONICS INC.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Company’s other certifying officers, if any, and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and proceduresto ensure that material information         relating to the Company, including itssubsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by         others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report         is being prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a         datewithin 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation         Date"); and 

    c) presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the           disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date:

5. The Company’s other certifying officers, if any, and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

> 
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal    controls which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,    summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company’s auditors    any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

80

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or    other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls; and 

6. The Company’s other certifying officers, if any, and I haveindicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequentto the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

 

Date: April 16, 2007                    /S/JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                        JohnW. Whitney

                                        President

81
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1990 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 543
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1990

                          [Report No. 105-304]

  To authorize expansion of Fort Davis National Historic Site in Fort 
                             Davis, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 1998

  Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr. Gramm) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

             September 8 (legislative day, August 31), 1998

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize expansion of Fort Davis National Historic Site in Fort 
                             Davis, Texas.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF FORT DAVIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, FORT DAVIS, 
              TEXAS.

    The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
establishment of a national historic site at Fort Davis, Jeff Davis 
County, Texas'', approved September 8, 1961 (75 Stat. 488; 16 U.S.C. 
461 note), is amended by striking ``not to exceed four hundred and 
sixty acres'' and inserting ``not to exceed 476 acres''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 543

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1990

                          [Report No. 105-304]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To authorize expansion of Fort Davis National Historic Site in Fort 
                             Davis, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

             September 8 (legislative day, August 31), 1998

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Jackson *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

(Decided November 21, 1912.

60 South. 97.)

*Homicide; Evidence; Sufficiency.*— The evidence in this case examined and held insufficient upon which to rest a finding of guilt or to justify a reasonable inference of guilt, and consequently, defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge as requested.

Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. John T. Lackland.

Tom Jackson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

William D. Dunn, for appellant.

Counsel discusses the evidence, and insists that it failed to show any preconcert with Ben Jackson, and that it was insufficient upon which to rest a finding of guilt, or a reasonable inference of guilt, and that therefore, defendant was entitled to the affirmative *charge.*— Turner *v. Stale,*97 Ala. 57.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The evidence was sufficient to carry the question of guilt or innocence to the jury, and as they found against the defendant, the court will not disturb the verdict.

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to suffer death. Chalmers Coats was the person slain. It appears, without dispute, from the evidence, that the fatal wound was inflicted by Ben Jackson, the father of appellant, and that the weapon used was a shotgun. It *77was not pretended that the appellant actually participated in the homicide. The sole predicate for his guilt is sought, in the evidence, to be ascribed to appellant’s preconcert with Ben Jackson, who actually fired the fatal shot, or to an aiding or abetting of Ben Jackson by appellant upon the occásion of the homicide.

The entire evidence, Avhich the bill of exceptions recites it contains, has been carefully examined and considered by the full bench. After such- consideration, the opinion prevails that there was no evidence, upon Avhich to rest a finding of guilt nor that would justify a reasonable inference of guilt, and, in consequence, that the affirmative charge, requested for defendant, was erroneously *refused.*— Turner *v. State,*97 Ala. 57, 12 South. 54; *Jones v. State,*174 Ala. 53, 57 South. 31; *McAnally v. State,*74 Ala. 9.

Beversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             201,850 
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   201,850
<PP&E>                                              13,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                      13,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     201,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               14,878
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                             1,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                          19,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       201,850
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     9,584
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18,387
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (8,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (8,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1054

XING GUO CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 22, 2016 Decided: October 6, 2016

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Keith S. Barnett, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin 

C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. 

Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xing Guo Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 asylum and withholding of removal.*

Chen first challenges the agency’s determination that his 

asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied 

to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) 

(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack jurisdiction to 

review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) 

(2012), and find that Chen has not raised any claims that would 

fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) 

(2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 

2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with 

respect to the asylum claim.

With respect to Chen’s request for withholding of removal, 

we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the 

record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), 

and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS 

v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we 

 * Chen does not challenge the denial of relief under the 

Convention Against Torture.
3

deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by 

the Board. See In re Chen (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2015). Finally, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s challenge to the agency’s 

finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application 

because he did not exhaust this claim before the Board. Massis 

v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).

We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition 

for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornelius McAdoo, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 898] —

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 22, 1990 *(People v Mc-Adoo,*166 AD2d 674 [1990]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 15, 1987.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USDA Civil Rights Policy StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Jennifer  Showalter
                        Research Support Services

                        




                        
                        Tractor Operator
                        Phone: (301) 504-5562
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DataWave Systems, 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 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 for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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.
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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.
  /s/ Joshua EmanuelJoshua Emanuel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer - 20 -
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA Rol NO. 

### 2023 KW 0538 SIMON JOHN QUINN 

### JULY 28, 

### 2023 In Re: Simon John Quinn, 

## applying for supervisorywrits, 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, No. 

### 700, 389. BEFORE: HOLDRIDGE, CHUTZ, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. GH WRC ARP
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Robert  Vinduska
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Utilities Systems Repairer Operator
                        Phone: (785) 712-3126
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
(10 App. Div. 542.)

#### BUSH v. BOARD OF SUP’RS OF ORANGE COUNTY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Constitutional Law—Commutation of Military Service.

Laws 1892, c. 604, authorizing cities and towns to refund money expended in furnishing substitutes, or in commutation by the men who were drafted into the military service of the United States, violates Const. 1889, art. 8, *4185 11, forbidding any county, city, town, or village to give any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or to incur any indebtedness except for county, city, town, or village purposes. 35 N. y. Supp. 167, affirmed.

Appeal from special term, Orange county.

Action by Hudson G-. Bush against the board of supervisors of Orange county, N. Y., Hiram T. Ostrander and others, and the town of Woodbury and others, to enjoin such board of supervisors from assessing a tax on the town of Woodbury, on the ground that the tax sought to be assessed is unconstitutional. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff (35 N. Y. Supp. 167) perpetually enjoining defendants from taking any proceedings to enforce payment of claims made by them under Laws 1892, c. 664, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

Grant B. Taylor, for appellants.

William D. Guthrie, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the learned judge at special term in his conclusion that chapter 664 of the Laws of 1892 is unconstitutional, for the reasons set forth in his opinion. In saying that the power of taxation includes the power to recognize claims against the state or its subdivisions founded only in equity and justice, but not in gratitude or charity, we do not understand Mr. Justice BROWN to deny that the state may manifest its gratitude for actual military or other public service by the imposition of taxes for the benefit of those who have rendered such service, or of persons dependent upon them; but that he refers to cases of gratuity pure and simple, where no moral, ethical, or honorary obligation exists. In this view, we affirm the judgment upon the opinion of the court below.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.