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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



I, Noel J. Guillama, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of The Quantum Group, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2007;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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.

The registrant's other certifying officers 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls 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 controls over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls 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 controls 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 controls over financial reporting.





Date: February 13, 2008



/s/Noel J. Guillama

Noel J. Guillama

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### William Simpson EDWARDS, Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Stephen Sparks; Edward O’Brien; Pradeep Sarswat; Kathy Azinger; Nicholas Ludwick; William Sperfslage; Deborah Nichols; Rebecca Bowker; Dave DeGrange; Sheryl Lockwood; Karen Woodley; Darrell Moeller; Mark Roberts; Rich Barlow; Dave Tadmann; Heather Brueck; Julie Cook; Julie Johnson; Dave Raynor; Anthony Aducci; Nancy Roth; Arthur *664Neu; Dennis Brumbaugh; Rick Larkin; John Ault; Dawn Hecox; Jo Watson; Tasha Whalen; Susan Mangels; Julie Pihl, Appellees.

No. 11-1873.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 4, 2011.

Filed: Sept. 22, 2011.

William Simpson Edwards, Iowa Department of Corrections, Fort Madison, IA, pro se.

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Simpson Edwards appeals from the district court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Following careful de novo review, see *Cooper v. Schriro,*189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that dismissal was appropriate for the reasons discussed in the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Sam Rao et al., Plaintiffs, v Peter A. Averson et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Michael T. Rao, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Donald B. Cohen, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment 1, of The Quantum Group, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2007;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d) -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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls 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 controls over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls 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 controls 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 controls over financial reporting.





Date:  September 19, 2008

/s/Donald B. Cohen

Donald B. Cohen

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5898 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5898

To amend the Buy American Act to require each department or independent 
     establishment to conduct an annual audit of its contracts for 
           compliance with such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2010

 Ms. Shea-Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Buy American Act to require each department or independent 
     establishment to conduct an annual audit of its contracts for 
           compliance with such Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Buy America Accountability Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. AUDIT OF CONTRACTS REQUIRED.

    Section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Audit of Contracts Required.--
            ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the end of 
        a fiscal year, the head of each department or independent 
        establishment shall submit to Congress a report that contains 
        an evaluation performed by such department or independent 
        establishment of contractor compliance with the provisions of 
        this Act for at least 10 percent of the contracts awarded by 
        the department or independent establishment during that fiscal 
        year for the procurement of articles, materials, or supplies.
            ``(2) Public availability.--The head of each Federal agency 
        submitting a report under paragraph (1) shall make the report 
        publicly available to the maximum extent practicable.
            ``(3) Exception for the intelligence community.--The report 
        required under this subsection shall not cover acquisitions 
        made by an agency, or component thereof, that is an element of 
        the intelligence community as specified in, or designated 
        under, section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
        U.S.C. 401a(4)).''.
                                 <all>
```
# USCIS Increases Employment Authorization Document Validity Period for Certain Categories

09/27/2023

We are updating guidance in the Policy Manual to increase the maximum validity period to 5 years for initial and renewal Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for certain noncitizens who are employment authorized incident to status or circumstance, including those admitted as refugees, paroled as refugees, and granted asylum, as well as recipients of withholding of removal.

We are also increasing the maximum validity period to 5 years for initial and renewal EADs for certain noncitizens who must apply for employment authorization, including applicants for asylum or withholding of removal, adjustment of status under INA 245, and suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal.

The updated guidance also explains the categories of noncitizens who are automatically authorized to work (also known as being employment authorized incident to status or circumstance) and provides more information on who can present a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, to an employer as an acceptable document showing employment authorization under List C of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The Form I-94 must be accompanied by identity documentation for purposes of employment authorization. Finally, this guidance clarifies that certain Afghan and Ukrainian parolees are employment authorized incident to parole.

Increasing the maximum EAD validity period to 5 years is intended to significantly reduce the number of new Forms I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, we receive for renewal EADs over the next several years, contributing to our efforts to reduce associated processing times and backlogs. However, whether the noncitizen maintains employment authorization remains dependent on their underlying status, circumstances, and EAD filing category. For example, if an individual received an EAD under the (c)(9) category based on a pending adjustment of status application for the maximum validity period of 5 years, and the adjustment application is then denied, their ancillary employment authorization may be terminated before the expiration date listed on their EAD.

For more information, please see the Policy Alert (PDF, 352.94 KB).

09/27/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
The Honorable Terry I. Adelman, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3534

___________

Stephen A. Marino, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

N.H.P. Property Management, Inc.; * Eastern District of Missouri.

National Corporation for Housing *

Partnerships; Cindy Brandebura, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 24, 1997

 Filed: August 18, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stephen A. Marino appeals the grant by the District Court of summary judgment 1

to the defendants. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that
-2-

the judgment of the District Court is correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Annual Report of China BAK Battery,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  September  30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report").  I,  Li
Xiangqian,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.

By: /s/ Li Xiangqian
   -----------------------
   Li Xiangqian
   Chief Executive Officer
   December 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Consolidated Income of Solutia Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the six months ended June 30, 2000, and the Statement of Consolidated
Financial Position as of June 30, 2000. Such information is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such combined financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>         1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              21
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      516
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                        367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,136
<PP&E>                                           3,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,527
<BONDS>                                            790
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                          34
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,918
<SALES>                                          1,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,680
<CGS>                                            1,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     79
<INCOME-TAX>                                        24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 55
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        55
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeannett Brown, Also Known as Jeanette Brown, Appellant.

— Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kellam, J.), both rendered October 3, 1984, convicting her of attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 1368/81, and bail jumping in the first degree under indictment No. 3807/84, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeal from the judgment rendered on the attempted robbery charge brings up for review the denial (Pitaro, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought suppression of identification testimony.

Justice Eiber has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Although the showup identification of the defendant at the police station approximately two hours after the attempted robbery was unnecessary and suggestive, there was an independent basis for an in-court identification. Thus, suppression was unwarranted *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241). The sentences were not excessive *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# Datos sobre Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo Publicados de Acuerdo a la Ley Federal "No FEAR"

La Notificación y Ley Contra la Discriminación y Represalias de Empleados Federales (No FEAR) aumenta la responsabilidad de las agencias federales por actos de discriminación y por represalias en contra de empleados que denuncien actos impropios o ilegales. En apoyo a esta ley, el ex Secretario del DHS, Michael Chertoff , emitió un memorándum reiterando su compromiso con la Ley No Fear de 2002.

El Inciso IIII de la Ley No FEAR obliga a las agencias federales a publicar las estadísticas de las querellas radicadas en su contra acerca de posibles violaciones al derecho de igualdad de empleo (EEO). DHS publica los datos estadísticos acumulativos de las querellas EEO de todo el Departamento. A continuación, encontrará el enlace con los datos publicados por DHS y USCIS, que son actualizados cada tres meses.

Para más información acerca de la Ley No FEAR o si necesita más información acerca del proceso para radicar querellas federales EEO, por favor llame a la Oficina de Igualdad de Oportunidad e Inclusión al 1-866-860-8885.

## Informe Trimestral 2024

Informe "No FEAR" Q1 del Año Fiscal 2024 (en inglés) (PDF, 1.25 MB)

## Informe Trimestral 2023

Informe "No FEAR" Q4 del Año Fiscal 2023 (en inglés) (PDF, 315.16 KB)

## Informe Trimestral 2022

Informe "No FEAR" Q4 del Año Fiscal 2022 (en inglés) (PDF, 1.2 MB)

## Informe Trimestral 2021

Informe "No FEAR" Q4 del Año Fiscal 2021 (en inglés) (PDF, 300.52 KB)

01/10/2024

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
# Adoption Information: Fiji

## USCIS Unable to Resume Processing Adoptions from Fiji

*Intercountry Adoptions Under the Hague Adoption Convention*

On August 1, 2012, Fiji joined the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention). However, the Department of State (State) has determined that Fiji does not yet have a fully functional convention process in place. State consular officers cannot certify that adoption decrees or custody orders obtained in Fiji for a child who is a resident of Fiji have been issued in compliance with the Hague Adoption Convention. Without this certification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot approve a Form I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative. 

Because U.S. prospective adoptive parents cannot complete the immigration process for an adopted child from Fiji, USCIS advises these parents not to file any Form I-800 on behalf of a child to be adopted from Fiji, as the USCIS National Benefits Center will reject these petitions. USCIS also advises families not to file Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country, identifying Fiji as the country from which they intend to adopt.

USCIS will promptly advise the public when State determines that Fiji has a fully functional Hague Adoption Convention system. If State makes this determination, USCIS will begin processing Forms I-800 for adoptions from Fiji.

The Hague Adoption Convention became effective in the U.S. on April 1, 2008, and protects the welfare of children, birth parents and adoptive parents involved in intercountry adoptions. Since this date, new intercountry adoptions between the U.S. and other Hague Adoption Convention countries must meet Hague Adoption Convention standards. In the U.S., Hague Convention adoptions are processed using USCIS Forms I-800A and I-800.  Fiji acceded to the Hague Adoption Convention on April 29, 2012, and the Hague Adoption Convention went into effect in Fiji on August 1, 2012.

Before the Hague Adoption Convention went into effect in the U.S. and Fiji, intercountry adoption cases from Fiji were processed using USCIS Forms I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, and I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative.

01/28/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.