alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2.47 How will the bureau notify you if it denies your fee waiver request? If the bureau denies your request for a fee waiver, it will notify you, in writing, of the following: ( a ) The basis for the denial, including a full explanation of why the fee waiver request does not meet the Department's fee waiver criteria in § 2.48 of this subpart;
( b ) The name and title or position of each person responsible for the denial;
( c ) The name and title of the Office of the Solicitor attorney consulted;
( d ) Your right to appeal the denial under subpart H of this part and a description of the requirements set forth therein, within 90 workdays from the date of the fee waiver denial letter; and
( e ) Your anticipated fees, in accordance with § 2.49 of this subpart.
[77 FR 76906, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 11130, Mar. 3, 2016; 84 FR 61828, Nov. 14, 2019]
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Thomas D. Malkoski, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Penford Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: April 8, 2005 /s/ Thomas D. Malkoski   Thomas D. Malkoski *Chief Executive 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

31

DAY HIGH

 131

 167

 135

 156

 196

 197

 180

 202

 170

 135

 121

 131

 128

 135

 134

 134

 119

 139

 165

 119

 146

 142

 155

 145

 139

 125

 133

 143

 154

 129

 138

 91

 116

 106

 105

 122

 128

 113

 108

 119

 108

 102

 104

 104

 106

 113

 105

 110

 110

 115

 106

 110

 113

 117

 116

 115

 112

 116

 109

 113

 112

 122

 110

 137

 123

 130

 150

 156

 144

 145

 136

 119

 110

 113

 114

 114

 118

 115

 113

 116

 124

 113

 118

 121

 123

 124

 122

 120

 124

 120

 124

 124

 128

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2345

TINIKA S. WARREN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRAD TOLBERT, City of Greensboro, NC; TERRI JONES; MARK WAYMAN; 

DONALD FOSTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-01401-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tinika S. Warren, Appellant Pro Se. John Roseboro, OFFICE OF THE CITY 

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tinika S. Warren appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action 

challenging the City of Greensboro’s condemnation of property occupied by Warren. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Warren v. Tolbert, No. 1:16-cv-01401-TDS-JLW

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2017). We deny Warren’s motion requesting certain documents and 

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

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

process.

AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Part 1600

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-12, the Bureau of Land Management removed all amendments to part 1600 made effective on Jan. 11, 2017, at 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016.

#### § 1610.5 Resource management plan approval, use and modification.

[48 FR 20368, May 5, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016; 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017]
### §3663. Tribal criminal assistance grants

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Tribal Justice, shall award grants to non-profit entities, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of title 26, which provide legal assistance services for Indian tribes, members of Indian tribes, or tribal justice systems pursuant to Federal poverty guidelines that submit an application to the Attorney General in such form and manner as the Attorney General may prescribe for the provision of defense counsel services to all defendants in tribal court criminal proceedings and prosecution and judicial services for tribal courts, and/or other purposes consistent with this chapter. Funding under this subchapter may apply to programs, procedures, or proceedings involving adult criminal actions, juvenile delinquency actions, and/or guardian-ad-litem appointments arising out of criminal or delinquency acts.

(Pub. L. 106–559, title I, §103, Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2780; Pub. L. 111–211, title II, §242(b)(2), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2292.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–211 substituted "defense counsel services to all defendants in tribal court criminal proceedings and prosecution and judicial services for tribal courts" for "criminal legal assistance to members of Indian tribes and tribal justice systems".
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 HIGH

 102

 93

 92

 86

 80

 82

 99

 107

 108

 110

 113

 110

 108

 105

 111

 112

 114

 113

 115

 117

 116

 121

 127

 125

 124

 133

 150

 137

 131

 129

 127

 82

 77

 77

 65

 62

 66

 75

 86

 87

 92

 96

 91

 90

 86

 92

 94

 100

 101

 103

 102

 101

 108

 109

 114

 109

 118

 122

 127

 119

 120

 109

 93

 88

 85

 80

 75

 74

 87

 98

 103

 106

 108

 105

 101

 101

 104

 108

 109

 109

 111

 109

 107

 116

 119

 121

 120

 126

 136

 133

 126

 125

 123

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 4, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
### §1742. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 97–399, §3, Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2012, which set out definitions for this part, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
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 Annual Report of IVI Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.


Date: January 11, 2004                    /s/ Nyhl Henson
                                          -------------------------
                                          Nyhl Henson, Chief Executive 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

DAY HIGH

 586

 703

 764

 769

 760

 713

 722

 724

 740

 746

 758

 763

 776

 788

 771

 740

 715

 642

 592

 462

 475

 445

 519

 527

 533

 569

 591

 607

 486

 584

 705

 752

 716

 699

 706

 711

 722

 726

 739

 738

 735

 769

 738

 725

 668

 519

 452

 425

 440

 424

 452

 511

 514

 529

 569

 590

 543

 637

 735

 762

 733

 705

 714

 718

 730

 736

 748

 748

 758

 777

 758

 734

 693

 542

 521

 440

 460

 432

 490

 518

 523

 549

 579

 597

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 4, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER
§ 61.105 Direct payment of benefits. ( a ) The Office may pay benefits, as they accrue, directly to any entitled beneficiary in lieu of reimbursement of a carrier.
( b ) The Office will not accept a case for direct payment until the right of the person or persons entitled to benefits has been established and the Office finds that the carrier would be entitled to reimbursement for continuing benefits.
( c ) The Office will not accept a case for direct payment until the rate of compensation or benefit and the period of payment have become relatively fixed and known. The Office may accept a case for direct payment before this condition has been satisfied, if the Office determines that direct payment is advisable due to the circumstances in that particular case.
( d ) In cases transferred to the Office for direct payment, medical care for the effects of a war-risk injury may be furnished in a manner consistent with the regulations governing the furnishing of medical care under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 8101, *et seq.*).
( e ) The transfer of a case to the Office for direct payment does not affect the hearing or adjudicatory rights of a beneficiary or carrier as established under the Defense Base Act or other applicable workers' compensation law.
( f ) The Office may retransfer any case to a carrier either for the purpose of completion of adjudicatory processes or for continuation of payment of benefits.
#### § 2650.5-5 Cemetery sites and historical places.

Only those cemetery sites and historical places to be conveyed under section 14(h)(1) of the Act shall be surveyed.
### **CHAPTER 2—OFFICERS OF INDIAN AFFAIRS**

Sec.
21 to 24.
Repealed or Omitted.
25.
Superintendent for Five Civilized Tribes.
25a.
Application of civil service laws.
26 to 32.
Repealed or Omitted.
33.
Superintendents in charge of reservations; administration of oath of office.
34, 35.
Repealed.
36.
Special agents and other officers to administer oaths.
37 to 39.
Repealed.
40.
Limits of superintendencies, agencies, and subagencies.
41.
Special agents and commissioners.
41a.
Indian inspectors.
42.
Repealed.
43.
Persons paid for other services not paid for interpreting.
44.
Employment of Indians.
45.
Preference to Indians qualified for duties.
46.
Preference to Indians in employment of clerical, mechanical, and other help.
47.
Employment of Indian labor and purchase of products of Indian industry; participation in Mentor-Protege Program.
47a.
Security required by Secretary; contracts with Indian-owned economic enterprise; public work.
48.
Right of tribes to direct employment of persons engaged for them.
49 to 52a.
Repealed.
53.
Disbursing officers; acting clerks.
54, 55.
Repealed.
56.
Quarters, fuel, and light for employees.
57.
Omitted.
58.
Limitation on number and kind of employment.
59.
Transfer of funds for payment of employees; details for other service.
60.
Compensation prescribed to be in full.
61.
Estimates for personal services in Indian Office.
62.
Discontinuance and transfer of agencies.
63.
Consolidation of agencies.
64.
Services of agents dispensed with.
65.
Discontinuance of agents, subagents, and interpreters.
66.
Duties of agency devolved on superintendent of Indian school.
67 to 68a.
Repealed.
### §262p–4. Instructions to United States Executive Directors; indigenous people in borrowing country; determination of impact; protection of rights; consultation

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each multilateral development bank to initiate discussions with other executive directors of the respective bank and to propose that the bank take such steps as may be necessary—

(1) to determine, at the time an initial feasibility study is conducted with respect to a proposed project and to the fullest extent possible, the impact such project would have on indigenous people in the borrowing country;

(2) to ensure compliance with loan conditionalities relating to the protection of the rights of indigenous people to lands and resources; and

(3) to consult with indigenous people, and nongovernmental organizations representing indigenous people, at every phase of loan design, planning, implementation, and monitoring.

(Pub. L. 95–118, title XVI, §1605, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(e) [title I], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–131, 1329–134.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1605 of Pub. L. 95–118 is based on section 701 of title VII of H.R. 3750, One Hundredth Congress, as introduced Dec. 11, 1987, and enacted into law by Pub. L. 100–202.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 262p–5 of this title apply to this section.
##### 



Exhibit 12 Statement Re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(amounts in thousands, except ratios) Year Ended December 31,2003
    
    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000
    
    1999Pre-tax income from continuing
operations
    
    $
    51,926
    
    
    $
    39,166
    
    
    $
    45,205
    
    
    $
    63,526
    
    
    $
    86,793Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    6,289
    
    
    $
    1,885
    
    
    $
    4,968
    
    
    $
    1,140
    
    
    $
    Amortized premiums
    
    
    91
    
    
    
    61
    
    
    
    61
    
    
    
    61
    
    
    
    30Interest component of rental expense(1)
    
    
    554
    
    
    
    479
    
    
    
    692
    
    
    
    648
    
    
    
    572Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    6,934
    
    
    $
    2,425
    
    
    $
    5,721
    
    
    $
    1,849
    
    
    $
    602Pre-tax income from continuing
operations plus fixed charges
    
    $
    58,860
    
    
    $
    41,591
    
    
    $
    50,926
    
    
    $
    65,375
    
    
    $
    87,395Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    8.5x
    
    
    
    17.2x
    
    
    
    8.9x
    
    
    
    35.4x
    
    
    
    145.3x
 Quarter Ended
    
    First Half EndedJuly 3, 2004
    
    July 3, 2004Income before income taxes
    
    $
    15,537
    
    
    $
    29,447Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    2,374
    
    
    $
    4,793Amortized premiums
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rental expense(1)
    
    
    129
    
    
    
    258Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    2,503
    
    
    $
    5,051Income before income taxes plus fixed charges
    
    $
    18,040
    
    
    $
    34,499Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    7.2X
    
    
    
    6.8X
    (1) Represents appropriate portion (1/3) of rental expense.
FINGERHUT COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     Computation of Earnings Per Share
             (In thousands of dollars, except per share data)
                                 Unaudited



                              Thirteen Weeks Ended    Thirty-Nine Weeks Ended
                              Sept. 26,    Sept. 27,    Sept. 26,    Sept. 27,
                                1997         1996         1997         1996
Primary

    Net earnings (a)         $   12,993   $    8,565   $   25,463  $    8,659

    Weighted average shares
     of common stock
     outstanding             46,163,574   46,181,050   46,122,419  46,224,968

    Common stock equivalents  3,684,907    2,442,968    2,997,244   2,455,177

    Weighted average shares of
     common stock and common
     stock equivalents (b)   49,848,481   48,624,018   49,119,663  48,680,145

    Primary earnings per share
     of common stock and common
     stock equivalents (a/b) $      .26   $      .18   $      .52   $     .18
Fully diluted

    Net earnings (c)         $   12,993   $    8,565   $   25,463   $   8,659
    Weighted average shares
     of common stock
     outstanding             46,163,574   46,181,050   46,122,419  46,224,968
    Common stock
     equivalents              3,990,436    2,444,628    3,990,436   2,498,521

    Weighted average shares of
     common stock and common
     stock equivalents (d)   50,154,010   48,625,678   50,112,855  48,723,489
    Fully diluted earnings per
     share of common stock and
     common stock equivalents
     (c/d)                   $      .26   $      .18   $      .51   $     .18


Common stock equivalents for primary earnings per share are
computed by the treasury stock method using the average market
price.

Common stock equivalents for quarterly fully diluted earnings per
share are computed by the treasury stock method using the ending
market price, average market price for the last month or the average
of the fully diluted monthly amounts used in the quarter, whichever is
higher.

Common stock equivalents for year-to-date fully diluted earnings
per share are computed by the treasury stock method using the
ending market price or the average of the fully diluted monthly
amounts used in the period, which ever is higher.
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 HIGH

 324

 291

 293

 284

 287

 299

 308

 315

 306

 305

 291

 265

 266

 274

 273

 294

 279

 279

 300

 378

 465

 525

 598

 651

 671

 690

 659

 634

 599

 595

 598

 279

 270

 266

 269

 264

 280

 285

 294

 277

 272

 255

 231

 227

 259

 259

 269

 263

 262

 276

 295

 385

 463

 519

 582

 614

 644

 604

 585

 560

 550

 580

 308

 281

 279

 278

 276

 288

 298

 306

 296

 289

 272

 249

 246

 267

 267

 282

 272

 272

 290

 319

 426

 500

 552

 609

 647

 664

 623

 606

 579

 568

 589

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 4, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 16,862

 16,236

 15,645

 15,071

 14,526

 14,027

 13,608

 13,253

 12,891

 12,511

 12,113

 11,712

 11,319

 10,951

 10,572

 10,206

 9,812

 9,404

 9,006

 8,893

 8,945

 9,101

 9,328

 9,598

 9,927

 10,267

 10,575

 10,878

 11,154

 11,409

 11,690

 562

 541

 522

 502

 484

 468

 454

 442

 430

 417

 404

 390

 377

 365

 352

 340

 327

 313

 300

 296

 298

 303

 311

 320

 331

 342

 353

 363

 372

 380

 390

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6090
JOSEPH P. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ED BANKS, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-560-5-H) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph P. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Banks , No. CA-95-560-5-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
================================================================================

                                  Exhibit 32.2


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 amended Annual Report of Whistler Investments,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mehboob
Charania, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  that to the best of my knowledge:  (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/ Mehboob Charania
                                                ---------------------
                                                Mehboob Charania
                                                Chief Financial Officer

 July 21, 2004