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

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kenneth W. Brimmer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Sterion Incorporated;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the 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(s) 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 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 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  December 28, 2004 | /s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer 
|----------------------- | -----------------------
|                        | Chief Executive Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA

MEDICAL CENTER, Battle Creek, MI, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1336

Issued: May 15, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 21, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 17, 2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-1336. 

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that the Board and OWCP may not 

simultaneously exercise jurisdiction over the same issue(s) in a case on appeal. 2 The August 17, 

2022 OWCP decision affirmed a January 19, 2022 merit decision, finding that appellant forfeited 

her entitlement to compensation. However, on May 2, 2022, appellant filed an appeal with the 

Board from a February 25, 2022 overpayment determination that was based on the same 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626;Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990). See alsoOrder Dismissing Appeal, 

M.H., Docket No. 22-0880 (issued November 4, 2022).
2

January 19, 2022 forfeiture decision. As the issue of whether OWCP properly determined that 

appellant forfeited her entitlement to compensation was pending before the Board in Docket 

No. 22-0820 when OWCP issued its August 17, 2022 decision, the August 17, 2022 decision is

null and void.

3

As OWCP’s August 17, 2022 decision is null and void, there is no final adverse decision 

issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction. The Board, therefore,

concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1336 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1336 is dismissed.

Issued: May 15, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id.; see also G.W., Docket No. 19-0260 (issued July 10, 2020); Cathy B. Millin, 51 ECAB 331 (2000).
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 29 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 29 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 29 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 3 of 3
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B OR I S L AV I VA NO V, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73566 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 586- 656 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 5, 2010 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , M cK E O W N , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B or i s l a v I va nov, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of B ul ga r i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ o rd ersu m m ar il y a ff irm in g an im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al evi dence 

# FI LED APR19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 73566 2 f in d in g s o f

f a c t, a n d w e r e v ie w d e n o v o le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s . W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd r e m a nd. W he n de t e rm i ni ng tha tI va nov ha d note s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , the IJdi d n otconsi der s ever al i nci dent s of harm suff er ed byI va nov be c aus e the I Jf ound the r e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

gove rnm e nt in v o lv e m e n t. T h e I Je rr e d b e c au s e a f f irm a tiv e s ta te a c tio n is n o t n e c e s s a ryto e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i tyf

orr e l i e f i f the gove rnm e nti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o c ontr ol the a g e n ts o f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e S i o n gv . I NS , 3 7 6 F .3 d1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A c c or di ngl y , be c aus e the I Jus e d a n i nc orr e c tl e ga l s t a nda r d, w e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd r e m a nd I va nov’ s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l c l a i m s f

or f u rth e rc o n s id e r a tio n . Se e V u km ir o v ic v . A s h c r o

ft , 36 2 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 51 (9th C i r. 2004) ( “ [ W ] e m us tgr a ntape t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd, i n a n appr opr i a t e c a s e , r e m a nd a c a s e f orf urthe rc ons i de r a t i on w he n the de ni a l of a s y l um w a s ba s e d on a n e rr orof la w .” ) ; see a l

so IN S v. V en tu ra , 53 7 U . S . 12 , 16 -18 (20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.D is s e n t:

J u d g e R y m e rwo u l d d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED APR19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED99767 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V BRANDON D. JACKSON, 

APP

2. ED100209 FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ET AL, APP V CITY OF STL, RES

3. ED100314 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V MICHAEL GRIMES, APP

4. ED100608 JASON W. O'BARR, APP V. DAVID COBBLE, JR., RES

5. ED100725 COLLECTOR OF REVENUE, RES V. PARCELS OF LAND, 

DFT

6. ED100808 SAUNDRA HENNINGS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

7. ED100957 RONALD HERBERT, RES V SECOND INJURY FUND, APP

8. ED101128 ADAM L. DERBY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

WITHDRAWALS

1. ED97810 PATRICK BLANKS, RES V FLUOR CORPORATION, APP
# C_2007277EN.01000201.xml

| 20.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4617 — Nutreco/BASF)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 277/02)

On 25 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4617. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4617. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, MarkBuckrey, certify that:

 

1.     I havereviewed this Form 10-KSB of STEN Corporation;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure 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) Evaluated theeffectiveness 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) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat 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 reasonably 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) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date December 28, 2005 |   | /s/ Mark F. Buckrey     |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AUGUSTUS FONTAINE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3855

[ February 7, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Laura Johnson , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CF012941A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J.

Concepcion, Assistant Attorn ey General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G R OSS

, C ONNER and K LI N GENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69580-69581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel. Fellowship Review.
    Date: November 29, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

[[Page 69581]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Willard Hotel, 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 
20004.
    Contact Person: Joann McConnell, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NIH/NINDS/Neuroscience 
Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 
20892-9529. (301) 496-5324. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cf1fffff3f2f2f9f6dcf2f5f2f8efb2f2f5f4b2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="177a7474787979727d57797e79736439797e7f39707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel. Cell Biology of Parkinson's 
Disease.
    Date: December 1, 2005.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Four Points Sheraton BWI, 7032 Elm Road, Baltimore, MD 
21240.
    Contact Person: Shantadurga Rajaram, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch NIH/NINDS/Neuroscience 
Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 
20852. (301) 435-6033. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#384a5952594a59554b785559515416565150165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcaebdb6bdaebdb1af9cb1bdb5b0f2b2b5b4f2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 4, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22690 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 32 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 32 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 32 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 32 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 4 of 4
#### WILSON v. TURNER

No. 138 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 101.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 June 1976.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 8, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Michael J. McCannMichael J. McCannChief Financial Officer
#### AUTRY v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 94 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 628.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1978.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000387 23-JAN-2019 08:11 AM
#### JAMES A. McGIMPSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SECURITY BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 16, 1931

Decided December 10, 1931.

*18Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

Bor the appellant, *Vincent S. Haneman.*

Bor the appellee, *Herbert B. Voorhees.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, owner of real estate, borrowed from the appellee the sum of $10,000 and gave it his bond secured by a mortgage upon his lands. As further security for such loan, the bond and mortgage required the mortgagor to insure his life in the sum of $10,000 and assign the policy to the mortgagee, and part of the monthly payments included the premium upon such policy. Such a policy was issued by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company and this policy was duly assigned to the defendant-appellee.

Hpon default under the mortgage the defendant below foreclosed and purchased the property under such sale September 5th, 1929, for $100. The decree was for $10,504.34, leaving a deficiency of $10,404.34.

The property was sold by appellee April 1st, 1930, for $11,500. At that time the total amount due appellee was $11,899.44. Deducting from this the selling price of $11,500 left a deficiency of $399.44. After the foreclosure sale and on November 16th, 1929, the appellee applied for and obtained from the insurance company the cash surrender value of the life insurance policy before referred to amounting to $425.

Thereupon appellant brought suit to recover from appellee this amount of $425 and the court below found in favor of the defendant below and rendered judgment accordingly. Brom this judgment the plaintiff below appeals and appears to urge in support of a reversal that appellee was not entitled to the cash surrender value of $425 unless—

1. It brought suit and recovered a judgment for deficiency.

2. Because it elected to take the property as security for its debt.

But we think neither of these grounds is tenable. The *19policy of insurance by reason of the form of its assignment, was collateral security of similar tenor and effect to that usually taken as security for a negotiable instrument. The mortgagee was entitled, therefore, to the proceeds thereof upon giving credit, upon the debt secured, for the amount secured therefrom.

Generally speaking the judgment of the court below was correct and well founded in law. However, the total loss to the defendant-appellee, from the agreed state of facts, seems to have been $399.44, exclusive of this sum of $425.

In strictness, therefore, the appellant was entitled to the difference between this amount of $399.44 and $425 or $25.56.

Inasmuch as the whole record of the case is before us, therefore, under the statute and rulings of this court the judgment below will be reversed and judgment will he entered in favor of the plaintiff below and against the defendant for $25.50, but without interest and without costs.
#### MORSE v. CURTIS

No. 8.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 620.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied and purported appeal as of right dismissed 22 January 1970.