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


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael Posner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Safe Technologies
International, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ Michael Posner
------------------------
Michael Posner, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2282 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2282

To extend until January 1, 1995, the previously existing suspension of 
                  duty on N-acetylsulfanilyl chloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1993

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend until January 1, 1995, the previously existing suspension of 
                  duty on N-acetylsulfanilyl chloride.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON N-
              ACETYLSULFANILYL CHLORIDE.

    Heading 9902.29.97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
#### Johan TIOANDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74055.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 23, 2010.

Romy Patterson, Law Office of Romy Patterson, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner.

Jennifer Paisner Williams, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

*228Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Johan Tioanda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Tioanda failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Tioanda’s contention that the agency violated due process by failing to adequately consider his evidence of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See id.*(“[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Tioanda’s contention that the IJ prejudged his cancellation application because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4345]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-734-001]


New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Filing

February 15, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 8, 2001, New York State Electric & Gas 
Corporation (NYSEG) on February 8, 2001 tendered for filing a fully 
executed service agreement (Service Agreement) between NYSEG and 
Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. (Conectiv) pursuant to section 35.13 of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) Regulations, 
18 CFR 35.13. NYSEG originally filed a partially executed Service 
Agreement with the Commission on December 20, 2000 pursuant to Part 35 
of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR part 35. As of the date of this 
submission, the Commission had not accepted the Service Agreement with 
the requested effective date of December 21, 2000. Under the Service 
Agreement, NYSEG may provide capacity and/or energy to Conectiv in 
accordance with NYSEG's FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3.
    NYSEG has requested that the Commission accept the fully executed 
Service Agreement and that the Service Agreement be given an effective 
date of December 21, 2000, the effective date originally requested by 
NYSEG when it filed the partially executed Service Agreement.
    NYSEG has served copies of the filing upon the New York State 
Public Service Commission and Conectiv.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before March 1, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).
    Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet 
in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 
on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4345 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Schedule K-1 

(Form 8865) 2020

Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, 

Credits, etc.

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

OMB No. 1545-1668

For calendar year 2020, or tax 

year beginning , 2020

ending , 20 

Final K-1 Amended K-1

Part I Information About the Partnership

A1 Partnership’s employer identification number

A2 Reference ID number (see instructions)

B Partnership’s name, address, city, state, and ZIP code

Part II Information About the Partner

C Partner’s SSN or TIN (Do not use TIN of a disregarded entity). See instructions.

D1 Name, address, city, state, and ZIP code for partner entered in C. See instructions. 

D2 If partnership interest is owned through a disregarded entity (DE), enter DE’s:

TIN Name

E Partner’s share of profit, loss, capital, and deductions 

(see Partner’s Instr. (Form 1065)):

Beginning Ending

Profit % %

Loss % %

Capital % %

Deductions % %

Check if decrease is due to sale or exchange of partnership interest .

F Partner’s Capital Account Analysis

Beginning capital account . . . . $

Capital contributed during the year . . . $

Current year net income (loss) . . . . $

Other increase (decrease) (attach explanation) $

Withdrawals & distributions . . . . $ ( )

Ending capital account . . . . . $

G Partner’s Share of Net Unrecognized Section 704(c) Gain or (Loss)

Beginning . . . . . . . . . $ 

Ending . . . . . . . . . . $ 

For IRS Use Only 

Partner’s Share of Current Year Income, 

Deductions, Credits, and Other Items

Part III

1 Ordinary business income (loss)

2 Net rental real estate income (loss)

3 Other net rental income (loss)

4a Guaranteed payments for services

4b Guaranteed payments for capital

4c Total guaranteed payments

5 Interest income

6a Ordinary dividends

6b Qualified dividends

6c Dividend equivalents

7 Royalties

8 Net short-term capital gain (loss)

9a Net long-term capital gain (loss)

9b Collectibles (28%) gain (loss)

9c Unrecaptured section 1250 gain

10 Net section 1231 gain (loss)

11 Other income (loss)

12 Section 179 deduction

13 Other deductions

14 Self-employment earnings (loss)

15 Credits

16 Foreign transactions

17 Alternative minimum tax 

(AMT) items

18 Tax-exempt income and 

nondeductible expenses

19 Distributions

20 Other information

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see Instructions for Form 8865. www.irs.gov/Form8865 Cat. No. 28396B Schedule K-1 (Form 8865) 2020
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4192]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG01-126-000]


PPL Holtwood, LLC; Errata Notice; Notice of Application for 
Commission Redetermination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

February 14, 2001.
    Take notice that the above-referenced notice (66 FR 10278, February 
14, 2001) was inadvertently issued under Docket No. EG01-40-000. Since 
then, it has been reassigned a new docket number as captioned above.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4192 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Curtis HOPE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4620.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 12, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2011.

*696Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Curtis Hope pled guilty to felony eluding, in violation of Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-817(B) (2010), as assimilated by the Assimilative Crimes Act (“ACA”), 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2006). He appeals, claiming that the assimilated state statute was a traffic law already adopted by 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2010). Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo whether the ACA assimilates a state offense. *See United States v. Dotson,*615 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.2010). We conclude there was no error and the Virginia statute was properly assimilated under the ACA. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment. *See, e.g., United States v. Fox,*60 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir.1995). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.15 
 Simple Promissory Note 
 $29,066.84 
 In the City of Fort Bragg, County of Mendocino, in the State of California, on the 17th day of April 2006 on demand, Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. promises to pay to the order of Paul Katzeff and Joan Katzeff the principal sum of Twenty-nine
thousand sixty-six dollars and eighty-four cents ($29,066.84) payable in payments of $1,000 each per week with a final payment of $1066.84. Interest to be paid monthly at 12% on the average daily balance of the previous month paid on the fifteenth
day of the following month, beginning on the 15th day of May 2006 and continuing said principal and interest have
been paid in full. 
 Obligee/Maker of Promise 
  

					
			
	/s/ Joan Katzeff	 		 	May 24, 2006
	 Joan Katzeff, President Officer,
 Thanksgiving Coffee
Company, Inc.
 Borrower
	 		 	
			
	/s/ Paul Katzeff	 		 	May 24, 2006
	Paul Katzeff, Lender	 		 	
			
	/s/ Joan Katzeff	 		 	May 24, 2006
	Joan Katzeff, Lender
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136623 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136623 

 COA: 280802 

Wayne CC: 03-007511-01

T.J. SUTTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
----

----

| (Mark      One) |                                                                                              |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  x         |  QUARTERLY      REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF      1934 |

| o | TRANSITION REPORT      UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGEACT |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Safe      Technologies International, Inc.                             |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Exact name of small      business issuer as specified in its charter) |   |

|   | Delaware                                    |   | 22-2824492               |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | (State or other      jurisdiction of   |   | (IRS    Employer         |   |
|   | incorporation or      organization)    |   | Identification      No.) |   |

|   | 1200      N Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432 |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Address of      principal executive offices)                |   |

|   |                                                                                        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (866)      297-5070                                                                         |   |
|   | (Issuer's telephone      number)                                                            |   |
|   |  __________________________________(Former      address, if changed since last report) |   |
|   |                                                                                        |   |

----

|                               | Safe      Technologies International, Inc. (Registrant) |                                |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                         |                                |   |
| Date:      November 23, 2009  | By:                                                          | /s/Christopher      L. Kolb         |   |
|                               |                                                         | Christopher      L. Kolb, President |   |
|                               |                                                         |                                |   |

----
No. 98-50194

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50194

Summary Calendar

 

ALVIN BOYD COUNTY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CV-668

- - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court granted Alvin Boyd County, Texas state

prisoner #717485, a certificate of appealability limited to the

issues whether his guilty plea was rendered involuntary because of

a threat from the state trial judge and whether he was entitled to

a federal evidentiary hearing on that issue. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. County has not met his burden

of proving that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered because
No. 98-50194

-2-

the trial judge threatened to sentence him to life imprisonment if

he went to trial and was found guilty. The court has not

considered the additional issues raised by County. See Lackey v.

Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court denying County’s federal habeas

petition is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the

district court. See County v. Johnson, No. SA-97-CA-668FB (W.D.

Tex. Feb. 5, 1998).

AFFIRMED.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2470

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Jeremy Thomas Estes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 3, 2011

 Filed: February 8, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Jeremy Thomas Estes guilty of six counts of receiving child

pornography (Counts 1–6) and one count of possessing computer equipment

containing child pornography (Count 7), 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), (b). At

sentencing, Estes stipulated that he had violated the terms of his supervised release

from a 2003 conviction. The District Court1

 sentenced him within the advisory

Guidelines range to concurrent prison terms of 262 months on Counts 1–6, 240

months on Count 7, and 18 months on the supervised-release revocation; a life term
-2-

of supervised release; and a fine of $20,000. On appeal, Estes’s counsel has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she seeks to

withdraw, challenges the sentence as unreasonable, and—citing United States v.

Burkholder, 590 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2010)—argues that the District Court erred in

allowing victim impact statements to be attached to the presentence report.

We conclude that the District Court took into account all the relevant sentencing

factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable

sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(describing factors that demonstrate procedural error); United States v. Watson, 480

F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.) (explaining how a district court may abuse its discretion

so that it imposes an unreasonable sentence), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 927 (2007); see

also United States v. Barnett, 574 F.3d 600, 603–04 (8th Cir.) (holding that concurrent

240-month prison sentences for one count of receiving and one count of possessing

child pornography were not unreasonable), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 766 (2009).

Further, we are not persuaded that Burkholder requires detachment of victim

statements from the presentence report, see 590 F.3d at 1074–77, and we conclude

that the District Court’s decision on this issue was not erroneous.

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel

leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

______________________________
#### TYWAAN REEVES *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Gennaro Bizzarro,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*ToniM. Smith-Rosario,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 29, 2010

The petitioner Tywaan Reeves’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 119 Conn. App. 852 (AC 29457), is denied.