alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Thomas H. Siemers, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First FranklinCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on 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 small business issuer as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4 The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated 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 small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: August 11, 2006 /s/ Thomas H. Siemers   Thomas H. Siemers   President and Chief Executive Officer   
1
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1116]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Availability of Seats for the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary Advisory Council

AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Notice and request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The ONMS is seeking applications for the following vacant 
seats on the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: 
Conservation and Environment [1 of 2] (alternate), Fishing--
Commercial--Shell/Scale (alternate), Submerged Cultural Resources 
(alternate), and Tourism--Upper Keys (member). Applicants are chosen 
based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the 
seat for which they are applying; community and professional 
affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of 
marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area 
affected by the sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should 
expect to serve 3-year terms, pursuant to the council's Charter.

DATES: Applications are due by February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from Lilli Ferguson, 
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Rd., Key West, FL 
33040. Completed applications should be sent to the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilli Ferguson, Florida Keys National 
Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Rd., Key West, FL 33040; (305) 292-0311 
x245; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cf83a6a3a3a6e189aabda8babca0a18fa1a0aeaee1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="74381d18181d5a3211061301071b1a341a1b15155a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Per the council's Charter, if necessary, 
terms of appointment may be changed to provide for staggered expiration 
dates or member resignation mid term.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, et seq.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary 
Program)

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Daniel J. Basta,
Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean 
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-1116 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the
Annual Report of Air Industries Group, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December
31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Luciano Melluzzo, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), 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.



|Dated: April 29, 2020                                         | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                              | 
|/s/ Luciano Melluzzo                                          | 
|Luciano Melluzzo                                              | 
|Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) | 



[A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Air Industries Group and will be retained by Air Industries Group and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 2, 2001

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL TUCKER

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. S99-05654 Chris Craft, Judge

No. W2000-02220-CCA-R3-CD - Filed November 20, 2002

GARY R. WADE, P.J., concurring.

I agree with the results reached in the lead opinion authored by Judge Wedemeyer. I write

separately, however, because I believe that the dissent places too much emphasis on the

supplemental instruction defining “adequate provocation” rather than the context of the entire charge

to the jury. Here, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows: “that the killing

resulted from a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable

person to act in an irrational manner.” When the jury asked for a definition of “adequate

provocation,” the trial court abbreviated a definition of provocation which was contained inBlack’s

Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, and charged the jury that “adequate provocation is one that excites such

anger as might obscure the reason or dominate the volition of an ordinary reasonable man.” In

context, I do not view the instructions, even with the supplement, so narrowly as to so limit passion

as being produced only by anger. This court has previously held that the term passion does not

require definition because it is commonly used and “can be understood by people of ordinary

intelligence.” State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, app. at 522 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting State v. Raines,

882 S.W.2d 376, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)). I would not classify the charge “review[ed] in its

entirety and read . . . as a whole” as erroneous and join in the affirmance of the conviction. See State

v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997).

_______________________________________

GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                         354,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    289,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,084,277
<PP&E>                                      19,246,096
<DEPRECIATION>                               (906,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,807,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,828,981
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,850
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,651,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,807,621
<SALES>                                      9,096,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,096,580
<CGS>                                        3,065,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,173,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             308,621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,039,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,039,520
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,039,520)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FELIMON CRUZ-VENTURA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 11 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                           NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
                              4201 WILSON BOULEVARD
                            ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

                              December 3, 1997

Mr. David M. Graves
Director, Business Affairs
Network Solutions, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive

Herndon, VA 22070

                                          Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742
                                          Amendment No. 07

Dear Mr. Graves:

The National Science Foundation understands that on December 1, 1997, or 14 days
after the date this amendment is signed, whichever is later, and concurrent with
the transfer of ten employees from Network Solutions, Inc. to The American
Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) on the same date, Network Solutions, Inc.
will transfer responsibility for the IP Number assignment, Autonomous System
Number assignment, and IN-ADDR.ARPA tasks to ARIN.

By this amendment, effective December 1, 1997, or 14 days after the date this
amendment is signed, whichever is later, and concurrent with the transfer of ten
employees from Network Solutions, Inc. to the American Registry for Internet
Numbers (ARIN), the National Science Foundation fully and finally relieves,
releases, and discharges Network Solutions, Inc. from any responsibility for the
IP Number assignment, Autonomous System Number assignment, and INADDR.ARPA tasks
being performed under Cooperative Agreement No. NCR- 9218742.

Nothing in this amendment releases Network Solutions, Inc. from the
responsibilities for the items entitled Office Space; Internet Connectivity;
Furniture and Equipment; Staffing; Database; Facilities; and Initial and Interim
Financing Operational Support described on pages 13 and 14 of the Year 5 Program
Plan as approved by Amendment 06 to Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742.
Network Solutions, Inc. will remain responsible for completion of each item, and
for reporting to the National Science Foundation the completion of each as it
occurs.

Except as modified by this amendment, all other Agreement terms and conditions
remain unchanged.

                                                  Sincerely,

                                                  / s / Karen L. Sandberg

                                                  Karen L. Sandberg
                                                  Grants and Agreements Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1

                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Daniel J. Brinker, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of American
TonerServ Corp.;

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 quarterly 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.   I am 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 or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   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.

Date: March 26, 2007


/s/ Daniel J. Brinker
Daniel J. Brinker
Chief Executive Officer
**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 B&D Food Corp. (the “Company”) for
      the period ending June 30, 2008 on Form 10-Q, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Daniel
      Ollech, 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) 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 results of operations of the Company.




By:
            /s/
                Daniel Ollech**Daniel
                Ollech**
              **Chairman
                of the Board, President**
              **and**
              **Chief
                Executive Officer**




November
      19, 2009
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 17, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00491

- CV

Laguna Reef Condominium Association, Inc. , Appellant

v.

Cross River Investments, LLC; Dr. John Moczygemba; and Sandra Moczygemba
, Appellee s

A P PEAL FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

- - OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFA NIS

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on February 14, 2022 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was rever sible error in

the court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court reverses the award of damages and attorney ’ s fees

and a ffirm s t he remainder of th e judgment

. We re mand the case to the tria l court for a new trial

on damages and attorney ’ s fees

. The appell ee s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in

this Court and in the court below.
No. 1,783.

#### MANTLE, Appellant, *v.*LARGEY, Respondent.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided February 24, 1902.

*Messrs. McHatton &*Cotter, for Appellant.

Per Curiam.

— The motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby sustained and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2156 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2156

To suspend through December 31, 2003, the duty on textured rolled glass 
                                sheets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2000

 Mr. Hollings (for himself and Mr. Thurmond) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend through December 31, 2003, the duty on textured rolled glass 
                                sheets.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by striking heading 
9902.70.03 and inserting the following:
    

``             9902.70.03     Rolled glass in    Free        No change        No change       On or before
                               sheets, yellow-                                                 12/31/2003
                               green in color,
                               not finished or
                               edged-worked,
                               textured on one
                               surface,
                               suitable for
                               incorporation in
                               cooking stoves,
                               ranges, or ovens
                               described in
                               subheadings
                               8516.60.40
                               (provided for in
                               subheading
                               7003.12.00 or
                               7003.19.00).....
 

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 
15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3909

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Juan Mojica-Almaguer, also known as * Andres Perez-Perez, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Jose Dejesus Hurtado, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 4, 2006 Filed: December 7, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Juan Mojica-Almaguer appeals th e sentence the district court 1 imposed after a jury found him guilty of illegal reentry afte r deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the district court erred at sentencing in refusing to grant a 2-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We reject this argument and affirm Mo jica-Almaguer’s sentence.-2- The district court’s finding--that Mojica-Almaguer’s case was not one of the rare cases when an acceptance-of-respons ibility reduction is appropriate for a defendant who has gone to tr ial--is not “so clearly erroneous as to be without foundation.” See United States v. Card , 390 F.3d 592, 594-95 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Mojica-Almaguer put the government to its burden of proof at trial, cross-examined witnesses, contes ted evidence, and moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis that the government ha d failed to establish one of the factual elements of the ch arged crime. See United States v. Cordero , 465 F.3d 626, 631-32 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of reduction for accepting responsibility where defendant, in addition to moving to suppre ss evidence against him, did not stipulate to all evidence necessary for conviction and instead put government to its burden of proof, and moved for judgment of acquittal at end of trial on grounds that government failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt); United States v. Stuart , 923 F.2d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 1991) (statements made by defendant acknowledging his guilt during presentence interview and during a llocution at sentencing did not entitle him to reduction in offense level for acceptance ofresponsibility). We also reject MojicaAlmaguer’s argument that U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 punishes a defendant for exercising his constitutional right to trial. See United States v. Smith , 40 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________