alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.01



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Petro, 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) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



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 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: October 21, 2005               
|                                     
|/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Computational Literacy - A New Literacy 

Necessary for the Future of Learning and Work

Date(s): February 16, 2022 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: In this webinar we will discuss what computational literacy is, how we can conceive of its emergence, 

and how we can nurture its advancement. Webinar attendees will hear a presentation from: 

• Andrea A. diSessa, Professor of the Graduate School of Education, University of California at Berkeley

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Davina Pruitt-Mentle, Ph.D., Lead for Academic Engagement, National Initiative for 

Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
Exhibit 13.1











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 Annual Report of Homeland Precious Metals Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Bruce Johnstone, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated this 22 day of September, 2009.








__/s/ Bruce Johnstone________________________________________Bruce JohnstoneChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### PHILLIPS v. FOOD LION

No. 65P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 212

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.107

Peoria Crossing Shopping Center

                                   ASSIGNMENT

     This Assignment is made as of the 3rd day of March 2004 by INLAND REAL
ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation ("Assignor") to and for the
benefit of INLAND WESTERN GLENDALE, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
("Assignee").

     Assignor does hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto
Assignee all of its right, title and interest as Buyer under into that certain
real Estate Sale Agreement dated as of January 9, 2004, as amended and entered
into by Kimco Barclay Peoria Crossing, L.P., an Arizona limited partnership, as
seller, and Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the "Agreement"), for the sale and
purchase of the property described by the Agreement, located in Peoria, Arizona.

     Assignor represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement,
and that it has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in
any way to any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts
the foregoing assignment and agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i)
perform all of the obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify,
defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from and against all claims and
liabilities arising under the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as
of the date first written above.

                              ASSIGNOR:

                              INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC.
                              an Illinois corporation


                              By: /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza
                                 ------------------------------
                              Name:  G. Joseph Cosenza
                                   ----------------------------
                              As Its:  President
                                     --------------------------


                              ASSIGNEE:

                              INLAND WESTERN GLENDALE, L.L.C.,
                              a Delaware limited liability company

                              By: Inland Western Retail Real Estate Limited
                              Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership

                              By: /s/ Charles Benevenuto
                                 ------------------------------
                              Name:  Charles Benevenuto
                                   ----------------------------
                              As Its:  Authorized Agent
                                     --------------------------
#### ELLIS-FOSTER CO. v. REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, Inc.

Civ. No. 6814.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

Oct. 8, 1951.

Lindabury, Steelman & Lafferty, Newark, N. J., for plaintiff, Andrew J. Steel-man, Newark, N. J., and William D. Burrows, New York City, of counsel.

■ Leavitt & Talley, Elizabeth, N. J., for defendant, Harry C. Bierman, New York City, of counsel.

FAKE, District Judge.

This case was remanded from the Court of Appeals for the purpose of introducing in evidence the file wrapper and contents of the Humphrey patent No. 2,025,947, and to consider the effect thereof as bearing on the opinion of this Court filed on the 26th day of January, 1950, 88 F.Supp. 236.

Many weeks of difficult study were given to the problems of chemistry involved in this case. Difficult because I had to sit at the feet of'counsel while they functioned as tutors in endeavoring to bring me to an understanding of what the issues really were. I am convinced that they finally succeeded in this. Now after the passage of months, I have again gone into the subject and again aided and abetted by counsel, I think I see the light.

What transpired here on remand will be elucidated by a reading of the report of the Court Reporter dated March 13, 1951. It is brief, consisting of only 17 or 18 pages, but nothing I might add would tend to further clarify the subject.

Nothing was found in the file wrapper to change, alter or amend the opinion filed herein on the 26th day of January, 1950. On the contrary, the file further emphasizes the fact that Humphrey announced what Ellis patented. That Humphrey disclaimed it, is but to say, he did not choose to patent it. There it was, however, right in the open for those skilled in the art to read and understand. Ellis came later with the same thought, and so he was not the first inventor.

The opinion of this court above mentioned is affirmed without change.
#### BOBBO INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. FRIENDLY HOME PARTIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, v. Rinaldo Del GALLO, III, Sanctioned Party-Appellant.

No. 04-1603.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 2, 2004.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 607 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 607

Providing for a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of 
          Representatives for the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 1998

       Pursuant to H. Res. 594; considered as having been adopted

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of 
          Representatives for the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the 
House of Representatives for the One Hundred Sixth Congress be printed 
as a House document, and that three thousand additional copies shall be 
printed and bound for the use of the House of Representatives, of which 
nine hundred copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index and 
delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

David Mutnick

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−00512

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

Clearview AI, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 9, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Plaintiff's motion

to consolidate cases [34] is granted. Enter Agreed Order. Mailed notice. (ym, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 36 Filed: 04/09/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:180
From: Brian Cummings 

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 12:40 PM

To: privacyframework 

Subject: NIST Privacy Framework

Katie:

Some thoughts on the proposed NIST Privacy Framework.

1. Cultural "Will to Protect": Leadership and culture is critical to an entity's privacy governance

and execution. An entity must, by decision, choose and act as a prime business directive to

protect private information and use the information in an ethical manner. Absent such strong

leadership and culture, an entity will struggle to achieve effective privacy protection.

2. Ethical Use of Data: It would be useful for entities to adopt the Data Ethics & Privacy practices

of Acxiom Marketing Services (Now owned by IPG). Acxiom presents three categories of

increasing restriction on the use of private information: 1) What is technically possible (the

broadest category); 2) What is legally permissible (Usually lags how data is made available

and used); and 3) What is Acceptable to your customers. Acxiom's Data Ethics & Privacy

practices target to achieve "Acceptable" use of data, the most restrictive category.

3. Network Segmentation: As a standard security practice, it is essential to isolate personal

information, and perhaps even different categories of information into highly secured (Zero

Trust) network segments. The secure segments should fully implement the Top Twenty

Critical Security Controls and mitigate the OWASP Top Ten Critical Web Application Security

Risks. Many entities continue to allow private information to proliferate across their technical

environment, making it impossible to protect or driving an excessively high cost of security.

4. "Aggressive Vigilance": There are notable entities who have for several years avoided being

the victim of a security breach by practicing what I call "Aggressive Vigilance." Their Security

Operations include a team that focuses on cyber-activity and cyber-attacks. They understand

the rhythm and flow of the of the business and network activity, and monitor for

anomalies. The "aggression" comes in on anomaly detection, at which time these entities

immediately interdict the activity and launch an investigation. Under the "Will to Protect", these

entities deem an interruption of a business service as preferable to allowing malicious activity

to progress down the cyber-kill chain.

__________________________________________
Exhibit 23.2




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
[KPMG TO CONFIRM]




The Board of Directors Macquarie Infrastructure Company
LLC:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statement (No. 333-144016) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-138010) on Form S-3 of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC
of our report dated February 18, 2011 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of 1MTT Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for the years then ended,
which report appears in the Form 10-K of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC.




Our report refers to the change in method of accounting for
noncontrolling interests.




/s/ KPMG LLP




New Orleans, Louisiana February 21,
2011


---
#### John Smith *v.*John P. Pell et al.

Trusts — Trustee—Good Faith — Failure of Trust Property to Bring its Value.

Where a trustee acts in good faith, although it seems that he could have realized out of the trust property the full amount of the debt, he will be charged only with the amount actually received.

APPEAL FROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

April 11, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The evidence shows with a reasonable degree of certainty that the debt of Smith was included in the amount of the notes given by Moore to Plalbert to secure-the judgment for which the mortgage was executed upon the tract of land in West Virginia. We think it may also be safely assumed that at the time Halbert accepted the trust he was apprised of the fact that Smith was one of the beneficiaries.

Halbert, however, was to receive no compensation for his services as trustee, he certainly acted in good faith and though it seems he might have realized out of the mortgaged land the full amounts of all the debts. Yet considering the unsettled condition of the country at the time of the transaction, it must be conceded that he acted in the matter both prudently and discreetly.

He should therefore only be charged with the amount actually received, and as it may be presumed that he paid out the whole amount received to the other creditors and therefore could not have made interest on the amount due Smith, he ought not to be charged with interest until he was notified that Smith had not *286been otherwise paid by Pell, and the amount to which he was entitled demanded. It seems, however, that there is an error in the amount allowed Smith; by the judgment his pro rata of the $1,300, at the time of its collection by Plalbert was $181.37, instead of $171.50, as adjudged by the court, and upon this amount we think he is entitled to interest from the 22d of October, 1867, the day upon which Halbert was served with process on the cross petition of Pell.

*Thomas, Phister, for appellant.*

*Ireland, Throop, for appellees.*

For the correction of the errors indicated the judgment is reversed. Upon the cross appeal the judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammed ABDUL-MAJID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-6221.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2004.

Ary M. Smith, Asst. U.S. Attorney [Gvt] Randal A. Sengel, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mohammed Abdul Majid, Big Springs, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EBEL, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Mohammed Abdul-Majid appeals1 from the district court’s decision denying Majid’s motion asking the district court to direct the court reporter to produce the original transcripts from his guilty plea and sentencing proceedings. (Aplt. br. at 3, 5.) Majid contends that the transcripts the court reporter previously produced are not accurate. *(Id.*at 5.)

This court, prior to Majid filing this transcript motion, denied Majid relief from his conviction and dismissed his direct appeal (R. doc. 433.), and denied Majid rehearing from that decision (Aplt. br. at 3.). Further, the United States Supreme Court denied Majid’s petition for a writ of certiorari. *Majid v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 94, 160 L.Ed.2d 183 (2004) (mem.). Therefore, Majid cannot characterize his current appeal as a second direct appeal from his conviction. “Once the defendant’s chance to appeal has been ... exhausted, ... we are entitled to presume he stands fairly and finally convicted.” *United States v. Frady,*456 U.S. 152, 164, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).

If Majid wants to challenge the accuracy of these transcripts and assert how those inaccuracies have prejudiced him, *see United States v. Tavema,*348 F.3d 873, 880 (10th Cir.2003), Majid must now do so in a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. *See generally*28 U.S.C. § 2255 (addressing requirements for timely filing § 2255 motion). While Majid has previously filed such a § 2255 motion, the district court dismissed that motion without prejudice to his refiling it because at that time Majid’s direct appeal was still pending in this court.

For these reasons, therefore, we DISMISS this appeal.

1

. This court grants Majid’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0552

_____________________________

RICO JONES,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

Clifton A. Drake, Judge.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Rico Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Alex Arthur Christiano, Assistant General Counsel, Florida 

Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case: 1:20-cr-00362 Document #: 12 Filed: 09/18/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:41
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Medford Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip
W. Wong, Chief 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, to the best of my knowledge:

      (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/ Phillip W. Wong
--------------------------------
Phillip W. Wong
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002


This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by
reference into any of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.
Exhibit 10.15

Nichol Clinical Technologies Corp.
1500 Quail Street, Suite 550
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 760-5460    Fax (949) 760-1836

May 17,
2001

|Mr. Luther Nussbaum
Chairman and CEO
First Consulting Group, Inc.
111 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802 |  | lnussbaum@fcg.com
fax 562-432-1932
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------

Dear
Luther:

I
am enthusiastic about my involvement with FCG to assist in areas we discussed by phone on Friday, May 11, 2001. I have received information from Rick Riegel and Mike
Desiderio (Attachment 1), which I request you review and approve.









---



Luther,
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues as we move forward to continue our commitment to increase FCG shareholder value.

|Best regards,                                                                   |  | Accepted:                                                     
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                |  |                                                               
|/s/F. RICHARD NICHOLF. Richard Nichol, Ph.D.
Nichol Clinical Technologies Corp. |  | /s/LUTHER NUSSBAUMLuther Nussbaum
First Consulting Group, Inc.

---

QuickLinks