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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Anthony J. Alda,  Principal  Executive  Officer of NS8  Corporation,  certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of NS8 Corporation;

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 annual
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 annual 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-14(c) and 15d-14(c)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries,  is made know 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  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures,  and  presented  in this  annual  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 our evaluation;

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 officers 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 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 control over
financial reporting.

Date: January 23, 2007

                                      /s/ Anthony J. Alda
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Principal Executive Officer
#### John Joseph ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden Sussex I State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-7700.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

John Joseph Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Joseph Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Rogers’ motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Presidential Documents

24046 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Presidential Documents

Proclamation 7437 of May 9, 2001

Mother’s Day, 2001

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

No matter what direction life takes us, a mother’s love and guidance are

a tremendous blessing that help us to grow up as stable, responsible, and

caring individuals. As nurturers, teachers, and protectors, mothers’ unconditional affection helps their children to blossom into mature adults. In partnership with fathers, mothers play a critical role in building healthy families.

Anna M. Jarvis is credited with influencing the Congress in 1914 to establish

an official Mother’s Day as a tribute to her beloved mother and to all

mothers. She conceived of the day as a time when children could formally

demonstrate respect for their mothers and reinforce family bonds.

Mothers who teach us right from wrong and to love our neighbors merit

our deepest gratitude and appreciation. Beyond their more traditional role

in rearing children, many mothers also face responsibilities outside the

home as members of the workforce. At the same time, they may be caring

not only for their biological or adopted children but also for stepchildren

or foster children.

Many American families are now headed solely by women, and these women

shoulder enormous responsibilities. For the good of their families and our

Nation, we must strive to provide support and assistance to those mothers,

such as, opportunities for training and employment; early childhood education for their young ones; and safe, affordable, and high-quality childcare.

But fathers must also remain committed and involved in the lives of their

children. By fulfilling their financial and nurturing responsibilities, fathers

help ensure the well-being of their children and ease the burden on those

women who carry the primary responsibility of caring for their families.

Whatever their circumstances, mothers demonstrate daily how their devotion,

strength, and wisdom make all the difference in the lives of their children.

To honor mothers, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 8,

1914 (38 Stat. 770), has designated the second Sunday in May each year

as ‘‘Mother’s Day’’ and requested the President to call for its appropriate

observance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 13, 2001, as Mother’s

Day. I encourage all Americans to honor the importance of mothers and

to celebrate how their love and devotion are crucial to the well-being of

children, families, and our society.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Presidential Documents 24047

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of

May, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence

of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fifth.

Billing code 3195

Filed 5

[FR Doc. 01

–10–01; 8:45 am]

–12080

–01–P

W
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

| 1.

Cinnergen, Inc., a Nevada Company

2.

Cinnechol, Inc., a Nevada Company

3.

I-Boost, Inc., a Nevada Company

4.

Knock-Out Technologies, Ltd., a Nevada Ltd Company

5.

Freedom-2 Holdings, Inc. a Delaware Corporation

6.

Freedom-2, Inc. a Delaware Corporation

7.

Freedom-2 Creditor Partners, a New Jersey Partnership

8.

Exceptional Tattoo and Equipment Supply Company, Inc. a Delaware Corporation

9.

Freedom-2 GmbH, Berlin, a German Corporation |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2017112EN.01004501.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/45

---

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Screen displays and icons)

(Case T-95/17)

(2017/C 112/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0054

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1947/2015-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002;

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quantum Materials Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian Lukian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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/ BRIAN LUKIANBrian Lukian,Chief Financial OfficerMay 24, 2010
#### The City of Brownville v. Middleton.

Practice : *A petition in error*must be filed with the transcript *of*the record of the District Court, and before the summons in error is issued, in order to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction.

The District Court for Nemaha county had rendered judgment against the plaintiff. It caused to be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court a transcript of the record of the District Court, and also caused a summons in error to be issued and served. But it did not file any petition in error.

Section 584 of the Code provides that “ The proceedings to obtain such reversal, vacation or modification, (of a judgment,) shall be by petition, to be entitled petition-in-error, filed in a court having power to make such reversal, vacation or modification; setting forth the errors complained of, and thereupon a summons shall issue and be served,” &c.

Section 586 provides, “that the plaintiff shall file with' his petition a transcript of the proceedings,”- &c.

' *J. M.*Woolworth, for the city, moved for leave to file a petition, now, as of the date of the filing of the transcript.

*Redick & Briggs,*for Middleton, moved to dismiss the summons in error.

The Court,

by Lake, J.,

held that the Supreme Court obtained jurisdiction to review- a judgment at law rendered by the District Court, only by the petition in error. That must be filed with the transcript, and - before the summons issued. Until it was filed, there was no authority for issuing the summons, and the writ was void. It could not be filed afterwards, so as to retain the summons in error which had already been issued and served. The motion to file the petition now as of the date of filing the transcript is denied, and the motion to dismiss the summons is sustained.

Cause dismissed.
# C_2017256EN.01003702.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/37

---

Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Cuervo y Sobrinos1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)

(Case T-374/17)

(2017/C 256/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cuervo y Sobrinos1882, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Ferrandis González and V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A. Salgado Nespereira, SA (Ourense, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882’ — EU trade mark No 10 931 087

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1141/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1141/2016-4, specifically, in so far as its confirms the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 29 April 2016, in the cancellation proceedings No 10 786 C declaring invalid EU trade mark No 010931087 ‘Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882’ for goods registered for that mark in Classes 14 and 16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1141/2016-4, specifically, in so far as its confirms the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 29 April 2016, in the cancellation proceedings No 10 786 C declaring invalid EU trade mark No 010931087 ‘Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882’ for goods registered for that mark in Classes 14 and 16;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have led to the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have led to the present application.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Winkler, Appellant.

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered October 30, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court (Marasco, J.), entered July 13, 1984, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. By opinion and order of this court dated May 11, 1987, the order entered July 13, 1984 was reversed by this court, the judgment was vacated, and the appeal from the judgment was dismissed as academic *(People v Winkler,*128 AD2d 153). On April 28, 1988, the Court of Appeals reversed the opinion and order of this court dated May 11, 1987, and remitted the case here for further proceedings *(People v Winkler,*71 NY2d 592). By decision and order of this court dated November 7, 1988, the order entered July 13, 1984 was again reversed by this court, the judgment vacated and the appeal from the judgment was dismissed as academic *(People v Wink*
      *715
      *ler,*144 AD2d 404). On June 13, 1989, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this court, dated November 7, 1988, reinstated the judgment rendered October 30, 1981, and remitted the case to this court for entry of an order remitting the matter to the County Court, Westchester County, for a hearing and determination on the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 *(People v Winkler,*74 NY2d 704).

Ordered that the order of the County Court, Westchester County, entered July 13, 1984, is reversed, the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for a hearing and determination on the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 consistent with *People v Winkler*(74 NY2d 704, *supra),*and the appeal from the judgment rendered October 30, 1981 is held in abeyance in the interim. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Certifications
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Approach Resources Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls
and procedures to be established and maintained, 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)
    
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC Release 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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; andd)
    
    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 function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    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.
 By:
    /s/ J. Ross CraftJ. Ross CraftPresident and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018190EN.01004201.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/42

---

Order of the General Court of 10 April 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIF

(Case T-320/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 190/67)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.2

                            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 Quebecor Media Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacques Mallette, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sections 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


Date: March 30, 2004



                                         /s/ Jacques Mallette
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                                             Jacques Mallette
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
153 So. 780

#### G. L. MORRIS v. M. E. BOWEN et al.

8 Div. 556.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 29, 1934.

W. H. Long, of Decatur, for petitioner.

Julian Harris, of Decatur, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of G. L. Morris for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Morris v. Bowen et al., 153 So. 779.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.