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

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Robert I. Jordan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Southern Sauce Company,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer and
have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: February 10, 2006

/s/ Robert I. Jordan
--------------------
Robert I. Jordan
President
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

As a director of NewPage Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and of
NewPage Corporation, a Delaware corporation (collectively, the Company), I hereby constitute and appoint Jason W. Bixby, Douglas K. Cooper, and Mark A. Suwyn, and each of them, with full power to act without the others, as
my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, for me and in my name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (Form 10-K), including all amendments and supplements to the Form 10-K, and to file the Form 10-K with all its exhibits and schedules and with all other documents in connection with the Form 10-K,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto my attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do each and every act and thing necessary or desirable to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that my attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of
Attorney.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Power of Attorney this 15th day of March, 2008.



/s/ Robert M. ArmstrongSignature


PrintName:

Robert M. Armstrong
### §1300m–5. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–454, title III, §307, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4795, which provided for governance of the tribe by an Interim Council until adoption of a new tribal constitution and bylaws, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 418.1355 What are the rules for reopening a decision by an administrative law judge of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) or by the Medicare Appeals Council (MAC)?

The rules in 42 CFR 405.980 through 405.986 govern reopenings of decisions by an administrative law judge of the OMHA and decisions by the MAC. A decision by an administrative law judge of the OMHA may be reopened by the administrative law judge or by the MAC. A decision by the MAC may be reopened only by the MAC.
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

September 27, 2024 CR-2023-0675 LaKendrick Martrel Desmond v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court: CC-21-2479.71) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on September 27, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 24, 2012

h0917 

# Order

September 24, 2012

144489

_________________________________________

In re Parole of TIMOTHY J. GRIER,

_________________________________________

MACOMB COUNTY PROSECUTOR,

Appellee,

v SC: 144489

COA: 304908

Macomb CC: 2011

- 000218

- AP

TIMOTHY J. GRIER,

Appellant,

and

PAROLE BOARD,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2011

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  annual  Report of  Foresight  Specialists,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  Chief Financail Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



                                                   /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                   --------------------------
Date: May 11, 2006                                     Kevin Ericksteen
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 286

 262

 179

 167

 181

 201

 268

 235

 298

 254

 315

 267

 406

 708

 1,044

 981

 1,159

 374

 298

 223

 210

 195

 219

 235

 254

 256

 300

 378

 361

 252

 149

 148

 149

 150

 150

 151

 153

 156

 156

 159

 159

 162

 165

 167

 169

 173

 175

 175

 175

 168

 165

 170

 173

 181

 180

 180

 182

 181

 176

 177

 167

 162

 155

 154

 156

 163

 171

 171

 169

 173

 175

 178

 204

 246

 297

 308

 345

 209

 191

 180

 177

 179

 185

 190

 194

 195

 205

 218

 205

 192

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §6771. Prohibition

#### (a) In general

Neither the Secretary of Defense nor any other officer or employee of the United States may, directly or by contract—

(1) conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on a civilian population; or

(2) use human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents.

#### (b) Construction

Nothing in subsection (a) may be construed to prohibit actions carried out for purposes not prohibited by this chapter (as defined in section 6701(8) of this title).

#### (c) "Biological agent" defined

In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiae or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, or any naturally occurring, bio-engineered or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, capable of causing—

(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or

(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title VI, §602, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–886.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this Act" and was translated as reading "this division", meaning div. I of Pub. L. 105–277, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–856, known as the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. For complete classification of division I to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6701 of this title and Tables.
§ 725.605 Defaults. ( a ) Except as is otherwise provided in this part, no suspension, termination or other failure to pay benefits awarded to a claimant is permitted. If an employer found liable for the payment of such benefits fails to make such payments within 30 days after any date on which such benefits are due and payable, the person to whom such benefits are payable may, within one year after such default, make application to the district director for a supplementary order declaring the amount of the default.
( b ) If after investigation, notice and hearing as provided in subparts E and F of this part, a default is found, the district director or the administrative law judge, if a hearing is requested, shall issue a supplementary order declaring the amount of the default, if any. In cases where a lump-sum award has been made, if the payment in default is an installment, the district director or administrative law judge, may, in his or her discretion, declare the whole of the award as the amount in default. The applicant may file a certified copy of such supplementary order with the clerk of the Federal district court for the judicial district in which the operator has its principal place of business or maintains an office or for the judicial district in which the injury occurred. In case such principal place of business or office is in the District of Columbia, a copy of such supplementary order may be filed with the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Such supplementary order shall be final and the court shall, upon the filing of the copy, enter judgment for the amount declared in default by the supplementary order if such supplementary order is in accordance with law. Review of the judgment may be had as in civil suits for damages at common law. Final proceedings to execute the judgment may be had by writ of execution in the form used by the court in suits at common law in actions of assumpsit. No fee shall be required for filing the supplementary order nor for entry of judgment thereon, and the applicant shall not be liable for costs in a proceeding for review of the judgment unless the court shall otherwise direct. The court shall modify such judgment to conform to any later benefits order upon presentation of a certified copy thereof to the court.
( c ) In cases where judgment cannot be satisfied by reason of the employer's insolvency or other circumstances precluding payment, the district director shall make payment from the fund, and in addition, provide any necessary medical, surgical, and other treatment required by subpart J of this part. A defaulting employer shall be liable to the fund for payment of the amounts paid by the fund under this section; and for the purpose of enforcing this liability, the fund shall be subrogated to all the rights of the person receiving such payments or benefits.
press release                                                                UPC

                      UNITED PAN-EUROPE COMMUNICATIONS N.V.
                 ANNOUNCES ACCEPTANCE OF AKKOORD IN DUTCH COURT

Amsterdam, The Netherlands - February 28, 2003: United Pan-Europe Communications
N.V. ("UPC" or the "Company") (EURONEXT Amsterdam: UPC), one of the leading
broadband communications companies in Europe, today gives notice that the
creditors meeting, with an overwhelming majority, has voted in favour of the
Akkoord (plan of composition) at this meeting at the Dutch court in Amsterdam.
The creditors meeting is related to the ongoing recapitalisation process of UPC.

The Dutch court has scheduled the confirmation hearing (homologatie) of the
Akkoord on March 12, 2003.

The company remains on track to complete the recapitalisation process by end
March 2003.

United Pan-Europe Communications N.V. is one of the leading broadband
communications and entertainment companies in Europe. Through its broadband
networks, UPC provides television, Internet access, telephony and programming
services. UPC's shares are traded on Euronext Amsterdam Exchange (UPC) and in
the United States on the Over The Counter Bulletin Board (UPCOY). UPC is
majority owned by UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. (NASDAQ: UCOMA).

NOTE: Except for historical information contained herein, this release contains
forward-looking statements, which involve certain risks, and uncertainties that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied
by these statements. These risks and uncertainties include our ability to
restructure our outstanding indebtedness on a satisfactory and timely basis, the
ramifications of any restructuring, the acceptance and continued use by
subscribers and potential subscribers of the Company's services, changes in the
technology and competition, our ability to achieve expected operational
efficiencies and economies of scale, our ability to generate expected revenue
and achieve assumed margins, as well as other factors detailed from time to time
in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
For further information please contact:

UPC Investor Relations                      UPC Corporate Communications
+ 44 (0) 207 647 8233                       + 31 (0) 20 778 9447
Email: ir@upccorp.com                       Email: corpcomms@upccorp.com

Lazard                                      Citigate First Financial
Daniel Bordessa                             Uneke Dekkers
+ 44 (0) 20 7588 2721                       + 31 (0) 6 5026 1626
                                            Citigate Dewe Rogerson
                                            Toby Moore
                                            + 44 (0) 20 7638 9571

Also, please visit www.upccorp.com for further information about UPC
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 4,110

 5,271

 4,391

 3,698

 3,862

 3,599

 3,438

 3,567

 3,438

 3,679

 3,465

 4,173

 3,467

 3,175

 3,350

 2,887

 2,857

 3,044

 3,435

 6,018

 6,691

 1,947

 2,253

 2,492

 3,285

 3,477

 4,728

 4,350

 2,287

 3,786

 2,101

 78,168

 78,164

 79,264

 79,472

 79,011

 78,730

 78,212

 77,568

 77,078

 76,490

 76,161

 75,644

 75,827

 75,329

 74,579

 74,032

 73,073

 72,134

 71,419

 71,111

 73,273

 75,966

 74,017

 72,456

 71,201

 70,762

 70,527

 71,492

 72,050

 70,620

 70,686

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 14,784

 29,568

 44,352

 59,136

 73,920

 88,704

 103,488

 118,272

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2011 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: January 10, 2012

 82,278

 83,435

 83,655

 83,170

 82,873

 82,329

 81,650

 81,135

 80,516

 80,169

 79,626

 79,817

 79,294

 78,504

 77,929

 76,919

 75,930

 75,178

 74,854

 77,129

 79,964

 77,913

 76,270

 74,948

 74,486

 74,239

 75,255

 75,842

 74,337

 74,406

 72,787

 1,285,216

 1,270,432

 1,255,648

 1,240,864

 1,226,080

 1,211,296

 1,196,512

 1,181,728

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,252,000

 3,267,000

 3,282,000

 3,296,000

 3,311,000

 3,326,000

 3,341,000

 3,355,000

 3,370,000

 0.0352

 0.0704

 0.1056

 0.1408

 0.1760

 0.2112

 0.2464

 0.2816

 SHASTA 

INFLOW 

C. F. S. 

 PREV DAY

 F. C. PAR 

 (COL 3) 

 X .95 

 F. C. 

 PARAM 

 (COLS. 

 1 + 2 ) 

 .0356* 

 X DAYS 

 12/23 THRU

3/20 

 530,000

 MINUS 

 F. C. 

 PARAM

 (COL 3)

 COLS 

 4 X 5 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (1,300,000 

 - COL 6 ) 

 MINUS 

 14,943 

 PER DAY

 AFTER 

 3/20 

 ADJUSTED 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (7-8) 

 PERM 

 STORAGE 

 COMMENTS:

 * LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

 CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) )

 IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE. 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 82,282
45

- Day Commenters

1. Clayton Houchin, Buttonwillow Warehouse Company

2. Steven E. Alexander, Helena Chemical Company

3. Peter J. Butehuas, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

4. Anthony Gurlo, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

5. Steve Dugo, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

6. Eric Vangroningen, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

7. Andrea Machado, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

8. Scott Hushbeck, Wilbur

- Ellis Company

9. Mike Strmiska, Mike Strmiska Consulting

10. Joe Bavaro, Bavaro Farming Company Inc.

11. Greg Musson, Gar Tootelian

12. Bradley Schrenk, Crop Advisor/PC A/CCA

13. Roger A. Isom, Western Agricultural Processors Association

14. Brad Hans o n, University of California, Davis

15. Dennis A. Balint, California Walnut Board

16. Robert K. Curtis, California Almond Board

17. James Wells, Environmental Solutions Group

18. Christopher Valadez , California Grape & Tree Fruit League

19. Bob Blakely, California Citrus Mutual

20. Brian L. Bret, DowAgro Sciences

21. Debbie Stubbs, Syngenta

22. Afiqur Khan, Western Plant Health Association

23. Tricia Stever Blattler, Tulare County Farm Bureau

24. Richard Matoian, American P istachio Growers

25. Nancy Levin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

26. Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Margaret Reeves, Pesticide Action Network North America

Sarah Sharpe, Fresno Metro Ministry

Caroline Cox, Center for Environmental Health

Deby DeWeese, Sisquoc Residents Concerned About Pesticides

Liz Figueroa, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte

Gail Bateson, Worksafe, Inc.

Jose T. Bravo, Just Transition Alliance

Irma Medellin, El Quinto Sol de America

Tracey Brieger and Sara Aird, Californ ia for Pesticide Reform

Teresa DeAnda, El Comite para el Bienestar de Earlimart

Mitzi Shpak, Action Now

27. Nick Condos, California Department of Food and Agriculture

28. Kurt Hembree, University of California Cooperative Extension Fresno County
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7886

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00178

- RDB

- 1 ; 1:20

- cv - 00566

- RDB )

Submitted : August 16, 2021 Decided: September 1, 2021

Before NIEMEYER , DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Daniel Jay Wright, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying r elief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the p risoner 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* The district court denied relief on Johnson’s § 2255 motion, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), (d) motion, and supplemental § 2255 motion. Johnson confines his appeal to the district court’s denial of relief on his § 2255 motion.
### §6503. Report on budgetary cost savings resulting from reorganization

The Secretary of State shall submit a report, together with the congressional presentation document for the budget of the Department of State for each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, to the appropriate congressional committees describing the total anticipated and achieved cost savings in budget outlays and budget authority related to the reorganization implemented under this chapter, including cost savings by each of the following categories:

(1) Reductions in personnel.

(2) Administrative consolidation, including procurement.

(3) Program consolidation.

(4) Consolidation of real properties and leases.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. A, title XI, §1104, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–767.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this subdivision", meaning subdiv. A of div. G of Pub. L. 105–277, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–765, known as the Foreign Affairs Agencies Consolidation Act of 1998. For complete classification of this subdivision to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6501 of this title and Tables.