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





CERTIFICATION





I,
      Bo
      Huang, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10- KSB
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2006, of Sinoenergy Corporation;





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 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 we have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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 fourth fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





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:





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.




Dated: April
              9, 2007
            /s/
                Bo
                Huang
              Bo
                Huang
              Chief
                Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 1,
      Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ending February 29,
      2008 (the “Report”), I, Virginia K. Sourlis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of 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,
      to
      the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.




Dated:
      April 3, 2008




By:
            /s/ Virginia K. SourlisVirginia
                  K. Sourlis
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)
                (Principal
                  Financial Officer)
Motion Granted and Order filed June 23, 2014 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14 - 14 - 00417 - CV NO. 14 - 14 - 00458 - CV

IN RE ROBERT PRIMO , Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 269th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2 013 - 17078 

### ORDER On May 30, 2014, relator Robert Primo filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Dan Hinde, presiding jud ge of the 269th District Court of Harris County, to vacate an order reinstating a prior order striking relator’s request for a jury trial. On June 11, 2014, relator filed2 a separate petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel Judge Hinde to vacate his original order striking relator’s request for a jury trial. On June 13, 2014, real parties in interest Porter Hedges LLP, John Alexander Irvine, and Richard Blake Runions filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the related mandamus proceedings
. We GRANT the real parties’ motion, and order the original proceedings pending under our case numbers 14

- 14

- 00417

- CV and 14

- 14

- 00458

- CV CONSOLIDATED
. In addition, the court requests real parties in interest Porter Hedges LLP, John Alexander Irvine, and Ri chard Blake Runions to file a response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in No. 14

- 14

- 00458

- CV on or before July 7, 2014
.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles J. Stubbs, President and
Chief Executive 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 to 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ CHARLES J. STUBBS                
|Charles J. Stubbs,                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

October 29, 2010

This certification
accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Michael Guzman, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 789]

*602The plaintiff, an infant, was injured when a door at his school closed on his thumb as he was exiting the school with the rest of his class. At trial, after the plaintiff and his mother testified, the plaintiff rested and the defendant moved to dismiss the action for failure to prove a prima facie case. That motion was granted, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

While a school is obligated to adequately supervise the students in its care and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to inadequate supervision, it is not an insurer of the safety of its students *(see Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). Here, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of the defendant’s negligence which was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury. The general assertion that had there been more or better supervision, the injury could have been prevented, cannot suffice to make a prima facie case *(see Walsh v City School Dist. of Albany,*237 AD2d 811 [1997]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Coley, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 503]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J, at hearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered January 28, 2002, convicting defendant of attempted assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing defendant, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The hearing evidence establishes that defendant orally agreed to waive his *Miranda*rights, and we find no significance in the absence of a notation on the *Miranda*form affirmatively acknowledging that defendant agreed to answer questions *(see e.g. People v Robinson,*287 AD2d 398 [2001], *lv denied*98 NY2d 680 [2002]). Furthermore, there was no evidence that defendant ever asserted his right to remain silent. Instead, he simply refused to speak to a certain officer while agreeing to speak to a different officer *(see People v Felton,*264 AD2d 632 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 822 [1999]).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence included the police eyewitness’s observations, as well as defendant’s voluntary admissions. The People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant fired shots at close range at a group of men, and that he followed them, still firing, as they fled.

*384The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s request to preclude certain testimony, and instead gave an adverse inference instruction as a sanction for inadvertently destroyed *Rosario*material *(see People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937 [1988]). Moreover, a *Rosario*violation is not a permissible ground for reversal “in the absence of a showing by the defendant that there is a reasonable possibility that the nondisclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial or other proceeding” (CPL 240.75), and defendant has made no such showing here.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
v. Mag. No. 11—4022

DANIEL SPITLER ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Zach Intrater, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing), and defendant Daniel Spitler (Susan Cassell, Esq.,

appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter to permit defense

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation

in this matter and to allow the parties to conduct plea

negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea agreement, and the

defendant being aware that the defendant has the right to have

the matter submitted to a grand jury within thirty days of the

date of the defendant’s arrest, pursuant to Title 18, UnitedStates Code, Section 3161(b), and the defendant having consented

to the continuance and waived such right, and for good causeshown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons;

(1) The charges in this case are the result of a

lengthy investigation, and the discovery involves highly
permitted a reasonable amount of additional time for effective

preparation in this matter;

(3) Plea negotiations are ongoing, and the defendant

has requested more time to make a plea decision;

(4) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section 3161 (h) (7), the ends of justice

served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this day of May, 2011,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

for a period from the date of this Order through July 31, 2011;

and it is further

—2—
Ci2 C.

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI United States Magistrate Judge Form and entry consented to:

Zach Intrater Assistant U.S. Attorney

SusanL1CassellQ. cu Counsel for defendant Daniel Spitler

—3--
# Ref weeks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,819
<SECURITIES>                                     1,455
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,905
<PP&E>                                         104,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,257
<BONDS>                                         60,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           106
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,598
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,826
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (557)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,785)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.81)
        

</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 Form 10-QSB of DirectView, Inc. (formerly Boston Pacific
Medical, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months ending June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Robbins, Principal Executive and Principal 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:

         (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/Jeffrey Robbins
Jeffrey Robbins
President, Principal Executive
and Principal Financial Officer
August 21, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 5, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-0638 Lower Tribunal No. 19-7942-CC

________________ 

### Ft. Trade Financial, Corporation ,

Appellant,
vs. 

### Roadway, Inc. , Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria D. Ortiz, Judge. Wilson Law Firm South Florida, P.A., and Paul E. Wilson (Plantation), for appellant. Benitez & Associates, and Leo Benitez and Lizette Benitez, for appellee. Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Umana v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933, 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[W]hile it is true that the absence of a transcript is not necessarily fatal to review of a trial court’s decision at a summary judgment hearing, it is not the nature of the hearing, but rather than the nature of the alleged error, which dictates the adequacy of the record on appeal[.]”) (internal citations omitted); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”).
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1060V

UNPUBLISHED

DIANA HOPKINS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: January 19, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu); 

Pneumococcal (PCV13); Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA).

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 21, 2020, Diana Hopkins filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (SIRVA) as a result of the administration of influenza (“flu”) and 

pneumococcal (“PCV13”) vaccines on November 14, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 7, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case because she suffered a SIRVA as 

defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, 4-5. Specifically, 

Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of the affected shoulder 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic 

studies occurring after vaccination; Petitioner’s pain began within 48 hours after 

vaccination; Petitioner’s pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was 

administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain 

Petitioner’s left shoulder pain. Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered 

the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Case 3:11-cr-00232-PGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 23
Case 3:11-cr-00232-PGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 24
Case 3:11-cr-00232-PGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 25
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5281

To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid brown 298. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid brown 298.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON ACID BROWN 298. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.02 Acid brown 298 (CAS No. 

70236–62–3) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.12.20) .. Free No Change No Change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 5281 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ