alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CHIEF    EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**     I, Harvey J. Bazaar, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual    Report on    Form 10-K/A    of BKF Capital Group, 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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))    and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in    Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(f)    and    15d-15(f))    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 in    being prepared;     b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting,    or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosures    controls and procedures, as of the end of he period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to    materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over    financial reporting; and     4. 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 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 controls 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. /s/  HARVEY    J. BAZAAR    Harvey J. Bazaar    Chief Executive Officer     Date: April 27, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6084

DARRELL L. GOSS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

BRIAN KENDELL; ALBERT L. MACK; TRAVIS GUESS; MR. ALLEN; 

C. HOLMES; SHONDA ROBINSON; LARRY TURNER, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00949-MGL) 

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darrell L. Goss, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN LEGAL, LLC, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6084 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Darrell L. Goss appeals the district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting in 

part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting summary judgment to Defendants, 

and dismissing his civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its order denying his 

motion brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

Goss v. Kendell, No. 2:20-cv-00949-MGL (D.S.C Mar. 23, 2022 & Jan. 11, 2023). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6084 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------



                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Saxelby, President and 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:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


                              /s/ William E. Saxelby
                              ----------------------------------------
                              William E. Saxelby
                              President & Chief Executive Officer



May 8, 2006
#### In the Matter of Peter J. Galasso (Admitted as Peter John Galasso), an Attorney, Appellant. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Respondent.

Submitted April 9, 2012;

decided May 1, 2012

Motion by the Bronx County Bar Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (53,877)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

NAI CHING SAELEE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30194

D.C. No.

3:04

- cr

- 00125

- RRB

- MMS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Nai Ching Saelee appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 6

- month sentence imposed upon revo cation of supervised release

. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Saelee contends that the district court impermissibly imposed the sentence to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 30194

punish him for his violation conduct. We review for plain error, see United States

v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that

there is none. T h ough the court commented that Saelee would “ pay the price ” for

his “ inappropriate conduct

, ” t he record as a whole reflects that the court imposed

the sentence primarily to sanction Saelee’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust

and in light of the court’s conc erns regarding recidivism

. See United States v.

Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062

- 63 (9th Cir. 2007) ( primary purpose of a revocation

sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust but the court can

also consider the seriousness of the viol ation conduct as part of its review of the

defendant’s criminal history and propensity for recidivism).

AFFIRMED.
1

Mark Filip has been appointed to serve as Acting Attorney General, and is

substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1433

___________

Tomas Xorxe Tarce, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review 

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Mark Filip,1

 Acting Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: January 30, 2009

Filed: February 4, 2009 

___________

Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Tomas Tarce petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). 
-2-

After careful review of the record, we conclude the decision of the IJ and the

BIA--that Tarce failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of

future persecution on account of a protected ground--is supported by substantial

evidence in the record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83

(8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); see also Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602,

605 (8th Cir. 2007) (when BIA adopts IJ’s decision and adds its own reasoning, this

court reviews both decisions together). Because Tarce alleged the same factual basis

for all his claims, the conclusions that support the denial of his asylum claim also

support the denial of his withholding-of-removal and CAT claims. See Samedov v.

Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 470]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated April 30, 2004, which remitted the complaint for a rehearing to complete the record, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated December 2, 2004, which granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The proceeding to review a nonfinal administrative determination, remitting the complaint for a rehearing to complete the record, was properly dismissed as premature *(see*Executive Law § 298; CPLR 7801; *Matter of National Westminster Bank USA v Rosa,*201 AD2d 314 [1994]; *Matter of City of Albany v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*157 AD2d 1008, 1008-1009 [1990]). Miller, J.E, Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10Q/A for the quarter ended September
30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his
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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Ronald A. Durando   | 
|----------------------- | 
|Ronald A. Durando       | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|                        | 
|June 21, 2018           |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                        1,854,898
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 237,464
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,973,883
<PP&E>                        25,987,000
<DEPRECIATION>                12,437,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                15,963,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,624,767
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    14,338,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  15,963,403
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,074,390
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              3,723,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>              120,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               230,994
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           230,994
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               130,000
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  360,994
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        

</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, July 20, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 21, 2009, 8 p.m., Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814 which  was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 18, 2009, 74 FR 23193.                

This amendment is to cancel NCI SEP: IRG Subcommittee H—Clinical Cooperative Group. This meeting is being  held as a regular Initial Review Group meeting and not a Special Emphasis Panel. Please see FR page 24859.  The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 10, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-14523 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------



                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                     OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathon M. Singer, 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 to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



                                    /s/ Jonathon M. Singer
                                    ------------------------------
                                    Jonathon M. Singer
                                    Chief Financial Officer



May 9, 2007
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q Amendment No 1 for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

/s/ Ronald A. DurandoRonald A. DurandoChief
Executive Officer

December 10, 2012

---
#### Quinton SHORTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Edward S. ALAMEIDA, Jr.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-17087.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 20, 2006.

Quinton Shorter, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

William V. Cashdollar, Esq., AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General (Sac), Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants — Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Quinton Shorter, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a prisoner faded to exhaust available administrative remedies, and review for clear error its findings of fact. *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108,1120 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

Shorter’s complaint alleged that officials at the California Department of Corrections discriminated against him on the basis of his age by not allowing him to participate in the federally funded “Incarcerated Youth Offenders Program,” on the ground that it is available only to people 18 to 25 years old with 5 years or less of incarceration time, and Shorter is 42 years old, and serving a 25 years to life term.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Shorter’s action because Shorter did not exhaust mandatory federal administrative remedies by notifying the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services prior to filing his complaint. *See*42 U.S.C. § 6104(e) (“No action ... shall be brought [under the Age Discrimination Act] ... if administrative remedies have not been exhausted.”).

Shorter’s contention that prison officials were obligated to guide him in exhausting federal administrative remedies is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the cotuts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.