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

CERTIFICATION

I, MichaelJack Kugler, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

          1.          Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Precious Metals, Inc.;

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

          3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

          4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                       (a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

                       (b)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

                       (c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

          5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                       (a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

                       (b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: February17, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review, Request 
for Comments; Renewal of an Approved Information Collection Activity, 
Use of Certain Personal Oxygen Concentrator (POC) Devices on Board 
Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request 
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) renewal of a current 
information collection. The rule requires passengers who intend to use 
an approved POC to present a physician statement before boarding. The 
flight crew must then inform the pilot-in-command that a POC is on 
board.

DATES: Please submit comments by November 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    Title: Use of Certain Personal Oxygen Concentrator (POC) Devices on 
Board Aircraft.
    Type of Request: Renewal of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0702.
    Forms(s): None.
    Affected Public: A total of 1,735,000 airline passengers and 
personnel.
    Frequency: The information is conducted on an as-needed basis.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 0.1 hours per 
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 172,694 hours annually.
    Abstract: The rule requires passengers who intend to use an 
approved POC to present a physician statement before boarding. The 
flight crew must then inform the pilot-in-command that a POC is on 
board.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of 
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2005.
Judith D. Street,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Information Systems and 
Technology Services Staff, ABA-20.
[FR Doc. 05-21003 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Terry Wayne BISHOP, Appellant.

No. WD 61224.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 8, 2003.

Emmett D. Queener, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Breck K. Burgess, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, C.J., BRECKENRIDGE and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Terry Bishop appeals the judgment convicting him of four counts of statutory rape, section 566.034, RSMo 2000; one count of first degree statutory sodomy, section 566.062, RSMo 2000; one count of *252second degree statutory sodomy, section 566.064, RSMo 2000; and one count of child molestation, section 566.067, RSMo 2000. Since a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.E., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Quantico, VA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1941

Issued: February 22, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Laura White, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 19, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal from a March 27, 2018 

merit decision of Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 19-1941. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse decisions issued under FECA.1 The March 27, 2018 decision expanded 

the acceptance of appellant’s claim and is therefore not a final adverse decision. The case record 

as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 

days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.1 As there is no final adverse decision issued 

by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the 

appeal docketed as No. 19-1941 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 19-1941 is dismissed.

Issued: February 22, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
<PAGE>   1






                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3

                           CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION

                                       OF

                              SYMPOSIUM CORPORATION

         Symposium Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, hereby certifies as follows:

First:   The Board of Directors of the Corporation, in order to eliminate the
         Certificate of Designation for the Corporation's Series A Convertible
         Preferred Stock, as filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on
         January 28, 2000 (the "Certificate of Designation"), and all other
         references to such Series A Convertible Preferred Stock from the
         Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation, duly adopted the following
         resolutions at a meeting held on May 5, 2000:

         RESOLVED that no shares of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock are
         outstanding and none will be issued.

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Certificate of Elimination be executed, which
         shall have the effect when filed in Delaware of eliminating from the
         Certificate of Incorporation all reference to the Series A Convertible
         Preferred Stock.

Second:  None of the authorized shares of the Series A Convertible Preferred
         Stock are outstanding and none will be issued pursuant to the
         Certificate of Designation.

Third:   In accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of the General
         Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the Certificate of
         Incorporation is hereby amended to eliminate all reference to the
         Series A Convertible Preferred Stock.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Symposium Corporation has caused this
certificate to be signed by Ronald Altbach, its Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, this 8th day of June, 2000.


                                     SYMPOSIUM CORPORATION

                                     By:       /s/ Ronald Altbach
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Ronald Altbach
                                              Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                              Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hill International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, John Fanelli III, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable 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.

 

Dated: May 8, 2008
#### KATHLEEN HEMRIC CARTER v. THOMAS WARD CARTER

No. 7223DC151

(Filed 23 February 1972)

1. Appeal and Error § 41— failure of record to show dates of pleadings, etc.

An appeal is subject to dismissal where the filing dates of the pleadings, motions, orders and judgment are not shown in the record on appeal. Court of Appeals Rule 48.

2. Divorce and Alimony § 23— refusal to change child support payments

No prejudicial error or abuse of discretion has been shown in the court’s order refusing to either increase or decrease the amount of the payments for support of the children of the parties.

Appeal by defendant from *Davis, District Judge,*7 September 1971 Session of District Court held in Wilkes County.

Plaintiff and defendant were married to each other on 18 September 1948 and lived together as man and wife until their separation on or about 23 February 1971. Two children were born of the marriage, and they are in the care and custody of plaintiff. Defendant is paying $30.00 per week for the support of the two children.

*649On or about 22 August 1971, defendant filed a motion in the cause alleging that the weekly support payments of $30.00 were excessive and asking that the amount thereof be reduced. Plaintiff filed a reply alleging that the weekly support payments of $30.00 were insufficient and asking that the amount thereof be increased. The matter was heard by Judge Davis on 7 September 1971. His order provided that no increase or decrease should be made in the weekly payments of $30.00 for the support of the two children and further provided for payment of attorney fees to counsel for plaintiff.

Defendant appealed.

*Franklin Smith for appellant.*

*No appearance contra.*

BROCK, Judge.

11] The filing dates of the various pleadings, motions, orders, and judgment are not shown in the record on appeal. Therefore, we are unable to tell with certainty when any of the actions took place, or in what order they occurred. Our rules, as adopted in 1967, are designed to prevent confusion created by not knowing when pleadings and orders are filled and actions taken. Rule 19 (a), Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals, provides in part as follows: “Every pleading, motion, affidavit, or other document included in the record on appeal shall plainly show the date on which it was filed and, if verified, the date of the verification and the name of the person who verified it. Every order, judgment, decree and determination shall show the date on which it was signed and the date on which it was filed.” A failure to comply with the rules of practice in this court subjects the appeal to dismissal. Rule 48.

[2] Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record, and, although some of the findings in the order appealed from seem to be immaterial upon the question of child support (G.S. 50-13.4), we feel that Judge Davis has adequately ruled upon the controversy. No prejudicial error or abuse of discretion has been shown.

The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.
#### W. Gregory BAKER and Vikki Lynn Baiers v. Chris A. VERRET, Ed Larry Sikes, Stephanie M. Higginbotham, DArnall, Sikes & Frederick (a CPA Corporation), Louis B. Viviano, BCM, L.L.C., LAF Foods, Inc., Greg Baker Enterprises, Inc., Cbc International, Inc., XYZ Insurance Co. and XYZ INsurance Co.

No. 03-208.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

George Allen Walsh, Alice F. Estill, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellants Vikki Lynn Baiers, W. Gregory Baker.

Nancy Scott Degan, Roy Clifton Cheat-wood, Kent Andrew, New Orleans, LA, Reginald J. Ringuet, Lafayette, LA, for Secondary Defendants-Appellants LAF Foods, Inc., BCM L.L.C., NKF I-DR Limited Partnership, CPCI Incorporated, VLB, Inc., Louis B. Viviano, CBC International, Inc., Greg Baker Enterprises, Nawlins Kajun Food L.L.C.

Robert A. Kutcher, Patricia Diane Tun-mer, Nicole Sophia Tygier, Metairie, LA, John Bologna Krentel, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees William A. Copeland III, Copeland’s of New Orleans, Inc., Alvin C. Copeland, Jr.

Larry Lane Roy, Jennifer A. Wells, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellees Co-regis Ins. Co., Chris Verret.

William H. Parker, III, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellees Ed Larry Sikes, Darnell, Sikes, Kolder, Frederick & Rai-ney.

Steven Gerald Durio, Jessica Watts Farmer, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellees Donald J. Baker, Kirby Pecot, Andrew B. Jameson, Max Luttgeharm, M.L. Godley, M.D.

Robert Louis Broussard, Lafayette, LA, for: Defendant-Appellee Donald J. Baker.

Joseph C. Giglio, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Walter A. Glod, Jr., M.D.

Court composed of NED E. DOUCET, JR., Chief Judge, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.

NED E. DOUCET, JR., Chief Judge.

For the reasons set forth in *Glod v. Baker,*02-988 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/6/03), 851 So.2d 1255, 2003 WL 21804398, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal shall be paid two-thirds by Baker and Baiers, and one-third by Vivi-ano and his entities not to include the two LLCs.

AFFIRMED.
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  report  of  Entech  Environmental  Technologies,
Inc.(the  "Company")  on  Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Burr D. Northrop, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                        /s/  Burr  D.  Northrop
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Burr  D.  Northrop,  President and Chief
                                        Financial  Officer
                                        Date:  March  25,  2005



<PAGE>
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31979R1117

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1117/79 of 6 June 1979 specifying the products in the seeds sector to be subject to the system of import licences***Official Journal L 139 , 07/06/1979 P. 0011 - 0011 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0008  Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 25 P. 0119  Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0008  Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 16 P. 0126  Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 16 P. 0126*

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1117/79  of 6 June 1979  specifying the products in the seeds sector to be subject to the system of import licences

  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 

 Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971 on the common organization of the market in seeds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 234/79 (2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 4 (2) thereof, 

 Whereas, given the situation of the market for hybrid maize for sowing, it is necessary to be able to monitor continuously trade patterns with third countries; 

 Whereas, in the case of hybrid maize for sowing, use should be made of the power under Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 to make imports of seeds subject to the production of an import licence, in order that the foreseeable volume of imports may be known in good time, so that any measures which the development of the market might require may be taken; 

 Whereas the Management Committee for Seeds has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its chairman, 

 HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

   Article 1

 The following products shall be subject to the system of import licences provided for in Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71: >PIC FILE= "T0015914">  

 Article 2

 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1979.

   This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

 Done at Brussels, 6 June 1979. 

 For the Commission 

 Finn GUNDELACH 

 Vice-President  (1)OJ No L 246, 5.11.1971, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 34, 9.2.1979, p. 2.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0418V

UNPUBLISHED

DENISE SUMMER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 19, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu); 

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA).

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On April 13, 2020, Denise Summer filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 

3, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office 

of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the opinion will be available to anyone with access to the internet.

In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or 

other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon 

review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public 

access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On August 19, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 31) at

1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for 

SIRVA. Id. at 6.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Exhibit 10.7(a)
  
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewals
   
    
    CTA Capital LLC
    
    Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P.
    
    CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P.
    
    Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P.
    
    Global Futures Fund Ltd.
    By:
    

/s/ Jennifer MagroJennifer MagroChief Financial Officer and Director
 ALTIS PARTNERS (JERSEY) LIMITED
 By:
    
/s/ Stephen HedgecockPrint Name: Stephen Hedgecock