alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT  TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Aura Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  hereof (the "Report"), I, Neal F. Meehan, Chairman 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, 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 for the periods  indicated.

       /s/ Neal  F. Meehan
**Exhibit 31.1**

**ASSISTEDHOUSING FUND L.P. I**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, Don L. Rigsbee,certify that:

 

1)              I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Assisted Housing Fund L.P. I;

 

2)              Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3)              Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4)              The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this quarterly report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

5)              The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 

Date:       November 12, 2004

| By:    | /s/ Don L. Rigsbee        |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Don L. Rigsbee*President* |   |

 

 

1

----
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2021-01-25 19:28:18","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q1"}
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 04, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 04, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0528. HAROLD B. MASON v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al.. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15CV025
#### In re: Van Anthony ROSE, Petitioner.

No. 10-2086.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 30, 2010.

Van Anthony Rose, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Van Anthony Rose petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and to *740order the production of previously-requested grand jury transcripts. We conclude that Rose is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).

Our review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that the district court entered a final order and judgment on September 27, 2010, in which it denied relief on Rose’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court recently decided Rose’s case, we deny Rose’s mandamus petition in part as moot.

To the extent that Rose seeks an order compelling the production of grand jury transcripts, he fails to show that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Rose fails to explain why he needs the transcripts in his mandamus petition, and provided no reason for his request in his motion before the district court. *See In re Braxton,*258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir.2001) (stating that petitioner seeking mandamus must establish that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought); *In re Grand Jury Proceedings,*800 F.2d 1293, 1299 (4th Cir.1986) (setting forth balancing test for petitioners seeking release of grand jury transcripts). Because the relief sought by Rose is not available by way of mandamus, we deny this portion of his petition.

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            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 Quaterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1.       The Report 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.


Date:  December 15, 2006

                                           /s/ Anthony Campo
                                           -------------------------------
                                           ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                           Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                           Financial and Accounting Officer
|   |                                                                                                                                                               |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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                for the periods indicated. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                                                   |                                  |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Date:                March __, 2008 | By:                                                                                          | /s/ Melvin              Gagerman |
|                                | Melvin                Gagerman                                                                         |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer, ChiefFinancial                Officer, Chief AccountingOfficer |

----
-  Home 
-  FMCSA Registration 
-  Commercial Drivers License 

# In This Section

                      -  CDL Overview 
                      -  Getting Started 
                      -  Drivers 
                      -  Motor Carriers 
                      -  Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) 
                      -  Military Driver Programs 
                      -  Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot (SDAP) Program  
                      -  Law Enforcement and Judiciary 
                      -  States 
                      -  Compliance 
                      -  Medical 
                      -  Human Trafficking 
                      -  Rulemaking 

# Toolkit to Expedite Licensing 

Toolkit to Expedite Licensing.pdf (124.37 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact					Francisco.soto@dot.gov.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Ray FELDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7215.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.

Billy Ray Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*732PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Felder has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Felder’s motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Clyde Lacy RATTLER, Appellant v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 10-5312.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Clyde Lacy Rattler, Washington, DC, pro se.

. R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GARLAND and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by the appel*505lant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 31, 2010, be affirmed. Appellant has not identified any error in the district court’s conclusion that the complaint was frivolous because “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” *Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
----

| Dated:      August 5, 2008 | /s/      Matthew Boyle       |
|----------------------------|------------------------------|
|                       | Matthew      Boyle           |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                       |                         |
|                       |                         |
|                       |                         |
| Dated:      August 5, 2008 | /s/      Paul N. Farquhar    |
|                       | Paul      N. Farquhar        |
|                       | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
#### Martha CANTU, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Eduardo CARMONA; Officer Frank Rodriguez; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-50662.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 28, 2008.

James Steven Hershberger, Midland, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jacqueline Lee Haney, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have read the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties. After reviewing the record we have concluded that the district court committed no reversible error. Accordingly, its judgment is affirmed. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 17, 2019

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter

KenAmerican Resources, Inc., Docket No. KENT 2013-0211.

(Issues include whether the Judge erred in concluding that the 

operator’s employees had not given advance notice of an MSHA

inspection.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those

needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: September 18, 2019

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel

Billing Code 6735-01
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3137 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3137

  To amend title III of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations 
   Act, 2021 to prohibit the expenditure of funds on the priorities 
 noticed in the proposed rule submitted by the Department of Education 
relating to Proposed Priorities-American History and Civics Education, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2021

Mr. Cawthorn (for himself and Ms. Foxx) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title III of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations 
   Act, 2021 to prohibit the expenditure of funds on the priorities 
 noticed in the proposed rule submitted by the Department of Education 
relating to Proposed Priorities-American History and Civics Education, 
                        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 ``Protect Equality And Civics 
Education (PEACE) Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

    After section 318 of title III of division H of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260), insert the following:
    ``Sec. 319.  None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
used to fund the priorities noticed in the proposed rule submitted by 
the Department of Education relating to Proposed Priorities-American 
History and Civics Education (published at 86 Fed. Reg. 20348 (April 
19, 2021)), or any other priority or requirement related to the 
teaching of Critical Race Theory under any grant, contract, or 
cooperative agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 Subsidiary
    
    State of IncorporationGEOMET Technologies, LLC
    
    MarylandVersar International, Inc.
    
    DelawareVersar of Ohio, Inc.
    
    OhioVersar Risk Management, Inc.
    
    New YorkVersar Laboratories, Inc.
    
    DelawareSCIMAN Corp.
    
    DelawareVEC Corp.
    
    PennsylvaniaVersar Global Solutions, Inc.
    
    VirginiaSBIS, Inc.
    
    DelawareADVENT Environmental, Inc.
    
    KentuckyProfessional Protection Systems, Limited
    
    United KingdomGEOI 1 Limited
    
    United Kingdom
  58