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

CERTIFICATION

I, Kim Fuesrt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  June 29, 2005

/s/ Kim Fuerst



Kim Fuerst



Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY WAYNE WILLIAMS, :

 :

Petitioner. :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0126-WS-M

 :

CYNTHIA STEWART, :

 :

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Respondent, Cynthia Stewart, and against Petitioner, Timothy 

Wayne Williams.

DONE this 1st day of August, 2016.

 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00126-WS-M Document 31 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2543 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2543

 To improve the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

 Mr. Wittman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Veteran's Choice Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF FEE-BASIS CARE PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall evaluate all programs of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs under which the Secretary furnishes 
hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to determine the 
most intensively used specialized care programs of the Department and 
to ensure such programs are maintained as centers of excellence.

SEC. 3. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF VA BUDGET AND CHOICE 
              IMPROVEMENT ACT.

    Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress an 
evaluation of the implementation by the Secretary of the VA Budget and 
Choice Improvement Act (title IV of Public Law 114-41).
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary Chayko, 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; 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/ Gary Chayko Gary Chayko President and Chief Executive Officer March 4, 2011
AO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Previous Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of  the defendant  the Director of the Bureau of Prisons  the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

 DENIED.  GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: Amended Offense Level:

Criminal History Category: Criminal History Category:

Previous Guideline Range: to months Amended Guideline Range: to months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

 The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time 

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

Darrell ONeal Thompson

08/06/2007

06-00176-001

09560-003

Pro Se

✔

✔

324 262 months

37

V

324 405

35

V

262 327

✔

08/06/2007

03/10/2009 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

Callie V. S. Granade, Chief U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 669 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

# AGENCY:

Office of Health Affairs, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Office of Health Affairs published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 19, 2014, concerning the public release of a guidance document, Patient Decontamination in a Mass Chemical Exposure Incident: National Planning Guidance for Communities. The document was missing a URL directing readers to the electronic copy of the document.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Mark Kirk, Office of Health Affairs, telephone (202) 254-6729.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 19, 2014, in FR Vol. 79, No. 244, on page 75826, in the third column, correct the Web site to read:                    

                            The document is available on the following Web sites:                             *http://www.dhs.gov/​office-health-affairs and http://www.phe.gov/​Preparedness/​responders/​Pages/​patientdecon.aspx*

Dated: January 5, 2015.

Mark Kirk, 

Director, Chemical Defense Program.

[FR Doc. 2015-00200 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-9K-P
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350BY
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

I, Dr. Amnon Gonenne, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of MabCure, Inc. (the Company), hereby 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:

| | (a) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
      annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                    

|By:    | /s/
      Dr. Amnon Gonenne                     | 
|------ | ----------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Dr. Amnon Gonenne                               | 
|Title: | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director | 
|       | (Principal Executive Officer)                   | 
|Date:  | March 24, 2010                                  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT




AMENDMENT NO. 1to that certain agreement dated December 11, 2009, by and among, Diamond Technologies Inc., a Nevada corporation whose principal office is located at 2795 Barton Street East, Unit 5, Hamilton, ON L8E 2J8 Canada (“DTI”); and John Cecil, Grace Cecil, Samuel Baker and Carol Baker, who are directors and shareholders of Rophe Medical Technologies Inc. (collectively referred to as “SELLER”); and Rophe Medical Technologies Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada whose principal office is located at 255 Duncan Mill Road, Unit 504, Toronto, ON M3B 3H9 Canada (“ROPHE”).




WHEREAS, the parties executed an agreement on December 11, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”; and




WHEREAS, paragraph 1.3(a) of the Agreement provides for the payment by DTI to ROPHE of $50,000 within 30 days of December 11, 2009; and




WHEREAS the parties desire to make certain amendments to the Agreement including an amendment to the said paragraph 1.3(a);




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:




1.
The Agreement is amended by substituting in paragraph 1.3(a) for the words “$50,000 within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement” the words “$50,000 on or before the 30th day of January, 2010”.




2.
The following shall be added to the Agreement as paragraph 8.4: “Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained herein, in the event of any default in the performance of this Agreement by either party (the “Defaulting Party”), except for the payment of $50,000 payable on or before the 30th day of January 2010,  the Defaulting Party shall be allowed a period of thirty (30) days in which to remedy such default.”




All other provisions of the Agreement dated December 11, 2009 remain in full force and effect.




DATED this 18th day of December, 2009.










DIAMOND TECHNOLOGIES INC.


a Nevada Corporation





By:  VINCE LEITAO, President











ROPHE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.


a corporation organized by the laws of Canada





By:  JOHN CECIL, President
#### Edward Bohan et al., Appellants, v F.R.P. Sheet Metal Contracting Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[872 NYS2d 168]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated May 30, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant RC Dolner, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted those branches of the separate cross motions of the defendants F.R.E Sheet Metal Contracting Corporation, J.T. Falk & Company, LLC, and Five Star Electric Corp., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendants F.R.E Sheet Metal Contracting Corporation, RC Dolner, Inc., J.T. Falk & Company, LLC, and Five Star Electric Corp. (hereinafter the defendants) established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the expert affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In his affidavit, the expert did not sufficiently “identify any specific industry standard upon which he relied,” nor did he supply any specific statutory or code violations *(Milligan v Shar-man,*52 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]; *see Lombardo v Cedar Brook Golf & Tennis Club, Inc.,*39 AD3d 818, 819 [2007]; *Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*17 AD3d 522, 523 [2005]; *Veccia v Clearmeadow Pistol Club,*300 AD2d 472 [2002]; *Cicero v Selden Assoc.,*295 AD2d 391, 392 [2002]). Thus, the expert’s affidavit was insufficient to defeat the defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444, 451 [1997]; *Murphy v Conner,*84 NY2d 969, 972 [1994]; *Veccia v Clearmeadow Pistol Club,*300 AD2d at 472).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contention. Florio, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 31556(U).]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2576 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2576

   To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the research report 
    exception to include reports about any issuer that undertakes a 
                proposed offering of public securities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2023

Mr. Williams of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the research report 
    exception to include reports about any issuer that undertakes a 
                proposed offering of public securities.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF RESEARCH.

    Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(3)) 
is amended--
     (a) by striking ``an emerging growth company'' and inserting ``an 
issuer'';
    (b) by striking ``the common equity'' and inserting ``any''; and
    (c) by striking ``such emerging growth company'' and inserting 
``such issuer''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Abreu, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 352]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered August 10, 2010, resentencing defendant to an aggregate term of seven years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 10, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). A defendant has no legitimate expectation of finality until he or she has completed an aggregated sentence *(see People v Brinson,*21 NY3d 490 [2013]). Here, defendant was resentenced prior to the maximum expiration date of his single aggregated sentence. Thus, the Supreme Court properly resentenced defendant to add a period of postrelease supervision. Although defendant’s *538consecutive sentences were imposed on different dates regarding separate, unrelated indictments, the sentences are added together, yielding a single sentence pursuant to Penal Law § 70.30 *(see People v Buss,*11 NY3d 553, 557 [2008]). We do not find the term of postrelease supervision to be excessive.

The court properly adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender. We reject defendant’s arguments that the court improperly included 10 points for defendant’s failure to take responsibility, and improperly imposed an override. In any event, if those 10 points and the override are disregarded, defendant would still be a level three offender, and we find no basis for a discretionary downward departure to level two *(see generally People v Pettigrew,*14 NY3d 406, 409 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.