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

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, James J. Cerna, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lucas Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
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
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:
     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
     a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
1st day of November, 2006.


/s/ James J. Cerna
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 524 

To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for 

certain shoreline borrow sites. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2023 

Mr. ROUZER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an 

exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION TO COASTAL BARRIER RESTRIC4 TIONS FOR SHORELINE BORROW SITES. 

5 Section 6 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 3505) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(e) BORROW SITE.—Section 5 shall not apply to ex9 penditures or financial assistance relating to the use of 

10 funds to use a borrow site located within the System if 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 524 IH

1 such site has been in use as a borrow site by a coastal 

2 storm risk management project for a period of more than 

3 15 years.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1152
ROLAND H. CRONER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Metlife, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-1072-5) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland H. Croner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Winfield Turley Shaffer, Michael Thomas Cimino, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Daniel J. Doebele, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, New York, New York, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although Appellant did not receive the notice required by Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), we find the failure to be harmless error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Appellee in Appellant's action alleging breach of contract and fraud. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Croner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. , No. CA-94-1072-5 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 22, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
32.2
















Principal
Financial Officer’s Certification Pursuant To


Section
1350


(furnished,
not filed)














In
connection with the Annual Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allan J. Kent, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)  The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and





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











/s/ Allan J.
Kent








Allan J.
Kent


Chief
Financial Officer


June 3,
2008
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 Lucas Energy, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the six months ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William A. Sawyer, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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.

/s/William A. SawyerWilliam A. SawyerChief Executive OfficerNovember 16, 2009



---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         114,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,095
<INVENTORY>                                      9,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,436
<PP&E>                                       1,727,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                 267,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,739,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,292
<BONDS>                                      1,295,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     327,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,739,073
<SALES>                                        982,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,120,351
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  620,919<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,161<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,063)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES GAMING, LODGING, FOOD & BEVERAGE AND OTHER
<F2>INCLUDES GENERAL & ADMINISTRATION AND DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION EXPENSES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 Sonoma College, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
D. Newman, Chairman and President (Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Charles D. Newman
---------------------
Charles D. Newman
Chief Executive Officer
November 20, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11516]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council, September 
01, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to September 02, 2021, 01:45 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on 
December 28, 2020, 85 FR 84355.
    The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting 
from September 1-2, 2021 to September 9-10, 2021. The meeting is to the 
public.

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11516 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6709

BYD Motors, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/84_FR_21389.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Crews, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered July 17, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were *463to suppress identification testimony and statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the police had probable cause to effectuate his arrest. After receiving firsthand information from an identified citizen informant implicating the defendant in the robbery of a Suffolk County gas station, the police obtained photographic identifications from the attendants at that station and at two other gas stations where similar robberies had recently occurred. Upon viewing photographic arrays, these three eyewitnesses all identified the defendant as the person who had robbed them, thereby providing the police with probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see, People v Banks,*151 AD2d 491; *People v Williams,*150 AD2d 410; *People v Brown,*146 AD2d 793; *People v Douglas,*138 AD2d 731), who was found in the automobile described by an informant *(see, People v Allen, 112*AD2d 375). Accordingly, there was no error in the court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his confessions and the identification testimony.

Furthermore, the court did not err in its ruling admitting into evidence a photograph of the injury sustained by one of the victims during one of the robberies. This photograph, which depicted a head wound closed by six sutures, was not excessively gruesome *(see, People v Bell,*63 NY2d 796), and was relevant to prove that the defendant did in fact commit this first degree robbery armed with a dangerous instrument *(see,*Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; *cf., People v Redd,*137 AD2d 770). Moreover, the photograph served to illustrate this victim’s testimony *(see, People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, *cert denied*416 US 905). As the photograph was not admitted for the purpose of inflaming the jury *(see, People v Johnson, 144*AD2d 490), its receipt into evidence was not erroneous.

Similarly, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence of that portion of one of his confessions in which he admitted robbing one gas station to obtain money for the purchase of drugs. This evidence of his motive was clearly more probative than prejudicial *(see, People v Weir,*120 AD2d 554). Furthermore, such evidence of motive was not improperly received as evidence of an uncharged crime *(see, People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d 40; *People v Molineux,*168 NY 264; *People v McKinley,*123 AD2d 362).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and *464find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6751

Aquaculture Technologies, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
* Judge Wilkins did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2620
ELDON WAYNE RILEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEYERHAEUSER PAPER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-94-11-3-MU) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, * and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eldon Wayne Riley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Max Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper , No. CA-94-11-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6161

Alter Trading Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6237

CW Bearing USA, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel