alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This Certification is intended to accompany the Nine Month Report of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the report), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. To the best of my knowledge,
the undersigned, in my capacities as set forth below, hereby certifies 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    EDWARD L. STERN,
#### Jose R. RIVERA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent.

No. 05-3057.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 11, 2005.

*ORDER*

Jose R. Rivera moves for reconsideration of the court’s December 30, 2004 order dismissing his petition for review for failure to pay the filing fee and to file a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination, with fee and Rule 15(c) statement attached.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Rivera’s motion for reconsideration is granted.

(2) The court’s December 30, 2004 dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(3) Rivera’s brief is due within 21 days of the date of filing of this order.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GRACELAND 

STATION, Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0750

Issued: July 20, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On May 1, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 9, 2023 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 23-0750 to the appeal.

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.1 By the March 9, 

2023 decision, OWCP found that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish greater 

than 16 percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity and 23 percent permanent 

impairment of the right lower extremity, for which she previously received schedule award 

compensation. However, on January 6, 2023, appellant had filed an appeal with the Board from a 

December 21, 2022 OWCP decision, regarding the same issue, to which the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0346. As the issue of whether appellant had greater percentages 

of impairment of the right and left lower extremities for which she had previously received 

1

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

A.J., Docket No. 22-1336 (issued May 15, 2023); Order Dismissing Appeal, M.H., Docket No. 22-0880 (issued 

November 4, 2022).
2

schedule award compensation was pending before the Board in Docket No. 23-0346 when OWCP 

issued its March 9, 2023 decision, OWCP’s March 9, 2023 decision is null and void.

2

As OWCP’s March 9, 2023 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. 23-0750 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0750 is dismissed.

Issued: July 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2

Id.; see also G.W., Docket No. 19-0260 (issued July 10, 2020); Cathy B. Millin, 51 ECAB 331 (2000).
**Exhibit 31.1** **Certifications**     I, Mark B. Thomas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of HEI, 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 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) (Intentionally omitted)     (c) 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     (d) 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. Mark B.    Thomas    Mark B. Thomas    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer     Date: November 30, 2007
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 28      Filed 02/10/2005     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 22

Subsidiary of the Company

            The following table sets forth certain information as of December
            31, 1992 concerning the subsidiaries of the Company.

                                                           Percentage
                                          Place of          Owned by
                                        Incorporation      the Company
                                        -------------      -----------

          Pouch Laboratories, Inc.       New Jersey           100%

          During August, 1993 a resolution was passed by the Company's Board Of
          Directors to dissolve Pouch Laboratories, Inc. having no reason to
          maintain the existence of this subsidiary. (See note 4, "Discontinued
          Operations" - 1993 10-K SB)

25 -      Power of Attorney (see "Power of Attorney" in the Annual Report on
          Form 10-K SB)

27 -      Financial Data Schedule


                                       48
Case 1:06-cv-15049-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
December 31, 2008



David Gilmer, Secretary

Grant Hartford Corporation

619 S.W. Higgins, Suite O

Missoula, MT 59830


 



Dear David;


This is to clarify that I am drawing $5,000 per month from the
Company and that my Employment Agreement states that my compensation is $15,000 per
month starting June 1, 2008. Since June 1st, 2008, I have chosen to accrue $10,000
of my compensation per month with the Company at no interest and no plan of payment.
I intend to continue accruing this amount each month until the Company is fiscally able.


 

Best regards


 


Eric Sauve
Case 1:06-cv-15154-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  11099606
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1060340
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        12159946
<PP&E>                                                   1046237
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          13206183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1199755
<BONDS>                                                    64181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   14957
<OTHER-SE>                                              11927290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            13206183
<SALES>                                                     2634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           39395
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         6354222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        471424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (6788885)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (6788885)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.56)


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 16 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 16 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 16 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 3
##### 



(a)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2005 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/Dane A. Miller
Dane A. Miller, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2005  /s/Gregory D. Hartman
Gregory D. Hartman
Senior Vice President  Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
August 9, 2005
Unassociated Document










MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT





 

WHEREAS, OxySure Systems, Inc. ("OxySure") and Scott T. Freeman ("Freeman") (OxySure and Freeman jointly, the "Parties") entered into that certain Employment Agreement ("Agreement") dated September 6, 2006; and

 

WHEREAS, The Parties have agreed that it is in their best interests to modify the terms of the Agreement.

 

NOW, WHEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

 

Exhibit A, Section 2(a) — "Base Salary" shall be amended, and Exhibit A, Section 2(a) shall read as follows:

 

(2) Salary, Bonus and Benefits

(a) Base Salary: For the period commencing August 31, 2008 through January 15,2009: (a) The monthly base salary shall be zero; (b) OxySure shall pay Freeman's medical insurance benefits; and (c) OxySure shall issue Freeman Stock options totaling 9,167 options per month, at an exercise
price of $.50 per share.


 


All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.




Agreed to and accepted:


 

 

 



	 	 	 	 	 
	
By:  
	 	 	
By:  
	 
	
Mr. Julian T. Ross
	 	 	
Mr. Scott T. Freeman, Executive
	 
	
For: OxySure Systems, Inc.
	 	 	
 
	 
	Date: August 30,2008	 	 	Date: August 30, 2008
exhibit105letteragreement.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing







Exhibit 10.5


August 7, 2009



Dr. John D. Rhodes

John D. Rhodes Family Limited Partnership

916 Woodland Dr.



Dear Dr. Rhodes:


Beacon Enterprise Solutions Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) hereby agrees to make and issue a promissory note in the principal amount of $500,000.00, bearing no interest and due on September 6, 2009 (the
“Maturity Date”), to the John D. Rhodes Family Limited Partnership (the “Lender”) in consideration of the loan of $500,000.00 (the “Loan”) made to the Company. The Company may prepay any or all
of the principal amount under the Note at any time.


The Company agrees to pay the Lender a credit facility fee of $25,000 to the Lender for the Loan, payment of which is tendered herewith, and issue warrants to purchase 25,000 shares of Common Stock to the Lender, at a purchase price of $1.00
per share, with a five year exercise period and on the same other terms as the warrants issued in the ongoing common stock offering.


In the event that the Maturity Date is extended to October 6, 2009 at the election of the Company, the Company shall pay the Lender an additional credit facility fee of $37,500 for such extension and issue warrants to purchase 37,500 shares of
Common Stock to the Lender, at a purchase price of $1.00 per share, with a five year exercise period and on the same other terms as the warrants issued in the ongoing common stock offering.


In the event that the Maturity Date is further extended to November 5, 2009 at the election of the Company, the Company shall pay the Lender an additional credit facility fee of $50,000 for such extension and issue warrants to purchase 50,000
shares of Common Stock to the Lender, at a purchase price of $1.00 per share, with a five year exercise period and on the same other terms as the warrants issued in the ongoing common stock offering.


In addition, each of Bruce Widener, Rick Mills and Rick Hughes shall make and issue a personal guaranty to the Lender of the obligations under the Loan, which guarantees are delivered herewith.


The Company intends to reserve fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the ongoing common stock offering for repayment of the Loan, until the Loan has been paid in full.












		
	
        	
Sincerely,

      /s/ Bruce Widener 

        Bruce Widener, Chief Executive Officer 

        Beacon Enterprise Solutions Group, Inc.






ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


/s/ John D. Rhodes 

  John D. Rhodes, as
  ___________ 

  John D. Rhodes Family Limited Partnership


	Cc:	Bruce Widener

  Richard C. Mills

Rick Hughes
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-16 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 53-16 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5166 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5166

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the loss of 
  United States citizenship by individuals who are unprivileged enemy 
                             belligerents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2010

   Mr. Dent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the loss of 
  United States citizenship by individuals who are unprivileged enemy 
                             belligerents.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Revoking Citizenship for Terrorists 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

    Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1481(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ``or'' at 
        the end;
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) being an unprivileged enemy belligerent (as such term 
        is defined in section 948a(7) of title 10, United States 
        Code).''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-10508

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,

Defendants,

DAVID CAVE, Honorable Judge,

Defendant, Appellee

_________________

No. 97-10898

_________________

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,

Defendants,

STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendant - Appellee
 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

-2-

_________________

No. 97-11257

_________________

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,

Defendants,

COUNTY OF DALLAS,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-2254-D)

June 24, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marti Addams-More appeals from the judgments dismissing her

claims against state-court judge David Cave, the State of Texas,

and Dallas County for failure to state a claim. We consolidate

Addams-More’s appeals, FED. R. APP. P. 3(b), and we dispose of all
-3-

three appeals with this opinion. Addams-More’s motions for leave

to correct her briefs are DENIED. 

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660

(5th Cir. 1987). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in

appellate review of the final determinations of state courts. See

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

476-82, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1311-15, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.

Ed. 362 (1923).

Addams-More repeats the civil-rights claims and the claims

under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §

12131-12165, that she raised in the district court. Addams-More

attempts to use federal civil rights law and the ADA to review the

state-court judgments adverse to her and to review actions

inextricably intertwined with those judgments. We lack

jurisdiction to consider Addams-More’s appeals. Addams-More’s

appeals are frivolous. We warn Addams-More that future frivolous

appeals may result in sanctions against her. Addams-More should

review any pending appeals and withdraw any appeals that are

frivolous.

APPEALS DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING

IMPOSED.
#### Philadelphia, Appellant, *v.*Miller.

December 16, 1904:

*Appeals*— Premature *appeal*— Motion *to quash*— Judgment—Verdict.

Where an appeal has been taken without judgment having been entered upon the verdict in the court below, and the appellee insists that the appeal shall be quashed for that reason, the motion to quash must prevail.

Argued Oct. 6, 1904.

Appeal, No. 21, Oct. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 1186, on verdict for defendant in case of Philadelphia v. Theodore F. Miller, Jules Wellens and Wesley Stead.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Smith, Porter and Morrison, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Appeal from award of road jury.

Motion to quash.

*Francis S. Cantrell, Jr.,*with him *Francis S. Cantrell,*for appellants.

*James*Alcorn, assistant city solicitor, with him *George E. Fili*and *JohnL. Kinsey,*city solicitor, for appellee.

Opinion by Porter, J.,

When this appeal was taken no judgment had been entered upon the verdict in the court below. The appellees have moved to quash the appeal upon that ground, and upon that motion now insist. In some cases, wherein appeals were improvidently taken before judgment was entered, judgment having been entered subsequently, we have treated the appeal as post-dating the entry of the judgment, and thus sustained the proceedings ; but in those cases there was no motion to quash upon that ground, or such motion was not pressed. *12The appellees in the present case have not only raised the question but persist in the assertion of their technical right, and the motion must prevail: Kimmel v. Johnson, 18 Pa. Superior Ct. 429; Wolff v. Wilson, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 266.

The appeal is quashed.
Case 1:06-cv-15073-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13