alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit31.1


CERTIFICATION





I, Fred
Zolla, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Vemics, 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 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 small business issuer and
have:





a.  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures 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
procedures as of the end of the period (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c.  
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer 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.





6.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.








/s/
Fred
Zolla


Fred
Zolla


President
and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


Date: May 22,
2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ALFREDO ROMERO

- CHAVEZ, AKA Alfredo R. Chavez, AKA Alfredo Romero Chavez, AKA Alfredo Chavez

- Romero,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10290

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr

- 00152

- SPL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven P

. Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Alfredo Romero

- Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea convic tion and 2 7

- month s entence for reentry of a

removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

. Pursuant to Anders v. California

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not prec edent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10290

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Romero

- Chavez ’ s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Rom ero

- Chavez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Romero

- Chavez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

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

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

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
#### WORD v. JONES

No. 336PA98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 100

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 8 October 1998. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 8 October 1998.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timoteo Ramirez, Appellant.

Submitted March 1, 2010;

decided April 6, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Norman A. Olch, Esq. relieved as counsel and Diane V Bruns, Esq., care of Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Sack, 200 E. Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein in his stead.
#### UNITED STATES v. William T. HICKS, Jr., [ XXX XX XXXX ], Engineman Fireman Apprentice, (E-2), U. S. Navy.

NCM 78 1421.

U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

Sentence Adjudged 6 July 1978.

Decided 31 Oct. 1978.

CDR S. Gaeta, Jr., JAGC, USN, Appellate Defense Counsel.

CDR T. C. Watson, Jr., JAGC, USN, Appellate Government Counsel.

Before BAUM, MICHEL and GRAN-GER, JJ.

BAUM, Senior Judge:

Appellant was tried on 23 May and 6 July 1978 by a special court-martial convened by the Commanding Officer, Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina. The appointing order of 30 March 1978, as amended on 8 May, detailed two Lieutenants of the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps as trial counsel and assistant trial counsel. When the court was called to order on 23 May 1978, the military judge noted that neither of these counsel were present but that another member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps was appearing on behalf of the Government. No written amendment to the appointing order detailing this officer is attached to the record, nor is there any indication that his presence resulted from an oral modification of that order. It, therefore, does not appear of record that an appointed counsel for the Government was present at the session held on 23 May 1978. It was error to proceed in this fashion. However, in light of *Wright v. United States, 2*M.J. 9 (C.M.A.1976), we deem that such error was not jurisdictional.

In *Wright,*the trial counsel who prosecuted the general court-martial was appointed in writing by the convening authority, but was later discovered to be unqualified to appear as counsel. The Court of Military Appeals found that appointment of counsel who did not meet the qualifications of Article 27(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 827, did not deprive a court-martial of jurisdiction. In so holding, the Court stated:

> ... we do not view counsel as an integral part of the adjudicating tribunal known as a court-martial, the jurisdictional existence of which requires that it be properly convened and constituted . . Article 16 of the Uniform Code specifies that a court-martial consists of a military judge and court members, not counsel. It is this adjudicating body which the Supreme Court has held ‘must be convened and constituted in en*588tire conformity with the provisions of the statute, or else it is without jurisdiction.’1

This language leads us to the conclusion that a trial proceeding conducted without an appointed trial counsel is not without jurisdiction. It is, as said in *Wright,*“rather an error to be tested for prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ [10 U.S.C. § 859(a)].”2

Appellant has neither assigned this error nor asserted any prejudice. We find error but no prejudice. Accordingly, the findings and sentence approved below are affirmed.

Judge MICHEL and Judge GRANGER concur.

1

. 2 M.J. 10.

2

. *Id.*
(104 So. 917)

#### Odell JACKSON v. STATE.

(6 Div. 250.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 28, 1925.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
Exhibit
32.2




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 Quarterly Report of North Shore Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 (the “Report”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Yo-Shin Song, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date:
      November 20, 2009
              /s/
      Yo-Shin SongName:
              Yo
      Shin SongTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29605-29606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13620]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 01-064]


Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review, Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms under OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this 
opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information 
collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This information is required to 
monitor contract compliance in support of NASA's mission and in 
response to procurement requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before July 
2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and 
Budget; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC, 
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Kaplan, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1372.
    Reports: None.
    Title: Patents, Data and Copyrights, NASA FAR Supplement, Part 
1827.
    OMB Number: 2700-0052.
    Type of review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: The information is used by NASA legal and 
contracting offices to ensure disposition of inventions in accordance 
with statutes

[[Page 29606]]

and to determine the Government's rights in data. Collection is 
prescribed in the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 
1827, Patents, Data and Copyrights (48 CFR Part 1827.)
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 1,988.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.2.
    Annual Responses: 2,386.
    Hours Per Request: 30 minutes to 8 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 7,276.
    Frequency of Report: Annually; Biennially; Other (Per Contract).

Andrea T. Norris,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, Office of the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-13620 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
# C_2020378EN.01000301.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-719/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom and pluralism of the media - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 15 and 16 - National legislation prohibiting an undertaking which has significant market power in a sector from establishing a ‘significant economic dimension’ in another sector - Calculation of revenues received in the electronic communications sector and the media sector - Definition of the electronic communications sector - Restriction to markets which have been subject to ex ante regulation - Account taken of the income of affiliated companies - Fixing of different income thresholds for undertakings active in the electronic communications sector)

(2020/C 378/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vivendi SA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Intervening party: Mediaset SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which has the effect of preventing a company registered in another Member State, the revenue of which in the electronic communications sector, as defined for the purposes of that legislation, is in excess of 40 % of the total revenues generated in that sector, from earning, within the integrated communications system, revenue which exceeds 10 % of the total revenues generated in that system.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
| **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 Quarterly Report of China Digital Ventures Corporation a Nevada    corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months period ending    December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof    (the "Report"), Con Unerkov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies    to the best of his knowledge, 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.
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to    China Digital Ventures Corporation, and will be retained by China Digital Ventures    Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon    request.
    Dated: November 20, 2009/s/ Con Unerkov    Con Unerkov    (Chief Executive Officer)** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00440-CR

Thomas Patrick Empey

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12988)

August 25, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgments. It is ordered that the judgments

of the trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,362-02

EX P ARTE CLARENCE DEWAYNE WILLIS , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 18F 1425-005-B IN THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM BOWIE COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenc ed to ninety nine y ear s’ imprisonment. The Six th Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. W illis v. State , No. 06-19-00246- CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 18, 2020) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it t o t h is Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffe ctive by re fu s ing to cross-e x amine a key witness, and failing to call impeachme nt and rebuttal witnesses. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Acc ording ly , the

rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E2

C R I M . P R O C . ar t

. 1 1

. 0 7 , § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts t o h o l d a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repres en t ed by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to r epre sent him a t the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is a ppointed or reta ined, the trial c ourt shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient and Applicant was prejudice d. The trial court m ay m ak e any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claim. The trial court shall make findings o f fa ct and conclusions of law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objec tions, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: November 02, 2022 Do not publish
# C_2020061EN.01000201.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Michael Dobersberger v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-16/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 57 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Applicability - Article 1(3)(a) - Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services - Provision of services on board international trains - National rules imposing administrative obligations in relation to the posting of workers)

(2020/C 61/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Dobersberger

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the provision, under a contract concluded by an undertaking established in a Member State and an undertaking established in another Member State, which is contractually linked to a railway undertaking established in that same Member State, of on-board services, cleaning or food and drink services for passengers carried out by salaried employees of the first undertaking, or by workers hired out to it by an undertaking also established in the first Member State, on international trains crossing the second Member State, where those workers carry out a significant part of the work inherent in those services in the territory of the first Member State and where they begin or end their shifts there.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCAIL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the quarterly report of Lincoln Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Pulos, Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln Mining Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:  (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.    Date: November 11, 2009 By:  /s/ John Pulos  John Pulos, Chief Financial Officer