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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Graham Cooper, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form  10-KSB of In Veritas  Medical
Diagnostics, Inc. for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006;

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 annual  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(s) 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 small business issuer is made known to us
by others,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared;

(b)  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the small  business  issuer's  disclosure
controls 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(s) 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 small  business  issuer'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 small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.

December 1, 2006





/s/ Graham Cooper
-----------------
Graham Cooper
President and Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Cedric Bernard Carldwell, Appellant

No. 06-15-00035-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 42773-B). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Cedric Bernard Carldwell, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 13, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2002 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.6
 AMENDMENT TO NET PROFITS
CONVEYANCE
 OF THE
 WILLIAMS COAL SEAM GAS ROYALTY
TRUST




---



##### 



AMENDMENT TO NET PROFITS CONVEYANCE
  RECITALS:
 WHEREAS st Annex I Annex II
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS
 1




---



##### 



WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 ARTICLE I
   ARTICLE II
    2




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
  3




---



##### 



Williams Production Company, LLC
    

    Bank Of America, N.A.,Trustee of the Williams Coal Seam GasRoyalty TrustBy:
    /s/ Jeffrey Schmuhl
    
    By:
    /s/ Ron E. HooperName:
    Jeffrey Schmuhl
    
    
    Name:
    Ron E. HooperTitle:
    Attorney-in-Fact
    
    
    Title:
    Senior Vice President and Administrator
 4
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 79

**Question 79:** Many existing reactor Technical Specifications require commercial power plant licensees to provide statistical personnel dose summary to NRC annually. The old Part 20 contained provisions for such reports, but no corresponding requirement carried over to the revised rule. Why?

**Answer:** The statement above confuses Technical Specification requirements with Part 20 Requirements.

Under the old Part 20, power reactor licensees (and other licensees) were required, by Part 20, to submit both annual "statistical summary" reports (in accordance with 10 CFR 20.407) and "termination" reports (in accordance with 10 CFR 20.408). In addition to these two Part 20 reporting requirements, power reactor licensees are required by their Technical Specifications to submit annual reports that include a tabulation of workers receiving exposures greater than 100 mrem/y and their associated collective dose according to work and job functions.

Under the revised Part 20, the statistical summary and termination reports of the old Part 20 are eliminated and replaced by a new annual report on the results of individual monitoring of occupational exposure (10 CFR 20.2206). The revised Part 20 has no effect on the annual report required by Technical Specifications. There are no plans to change this reporting requirement in the Technical Specifications.

(References: 10 CFR 20.2206, Reactor Technical Specifications)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Abraham Lucker, Respondent, against National Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed an award for occupational disease arising from the driving of a taxicab with a plastic wheel, and through the handling of money. The evidence sustains the decision. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan and Russell, JJ., concur; Brewster and Deyo, JJ., dissent.
#### Bernard Latiner v. Wonderland Amusement Company.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Celsia Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hakan Wretsell, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/
      Hakan
      Wretsell





Hakan
      Wretsell


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      26,
      2007
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Transfer of Exempt Quantities of By-product Material from a Nuclear Power Plant

## HPPOS-189 PDR-9111210298

See the memorandum from L. J. Cunningham to R. R. Bellamy (and others) dated July 15, 1987. Enclosed with this memorandum are two others: the first from L. J. Cunningham to R. L. Fonner dated May 7, 1987; and the second from R. L. Fonner to L. J. Cunningham dated June 30, 1987.

These memos state that exempt quantities of byproduct material, pursuant to 10 CFR 30.18, can be transferred from a nuclear power plant to a non-licensed laboratory provided: the transfer must not be for waste disposal, the transfer must not be for commercial distribution, and the material must not contain special nuclear or byproduct material other than that included in 10 CFR 30.71, Schedule B. HPPOS-131 and HPPOS-203 contain related topics.

The transfer of exempt quantities of byproduct material from a nuclear power plant to a non-licensee is permissible, provided all of the following general conditions are met.
        - The transfer meets all of the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20-71.
        - The transfer meets all applicable radioactive material transportation requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 100-178) and the U.S. Postal Service (39 CFR 124).
        - The transfer does not violate any applicable state regulations. In more specific terms, the transfer, pursuant to 10 CFR 30.18, must meet all of the following conditions:            - The transfer must not be for purposes of waste disposal. 
          - The transfer must not be for purposes of commercial distribution, except in accordance with a license issued under 10 CFR 32.18 stating that the byproduct material may be transferred to persons exempt under 10 CFR 30.18 or equivalent Agreement State regulations [10 CFR 30.18 (c) and (d)].
          - The material transferred must not contain special nuclear material or byproduct material other than that included in 10 CFR 30.71 Schedule B. The reactor licensee transferring exempt quantities of byproduct material must provide reasonable assurance that the material transferred does not contain radionuclides not included in 10 CFR 30.71 Schedule B. 

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.18, 10 CFR 30.71

**Subject codes:** 3.5, 11.1, 12.10

**Applicability:** Reactor

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22363-CIV-GAYLES/REID

JEAN COTY RIDORE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent. 

/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 

Judge (the “Report”) [ECF No. 6]. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his conviction and sentence following a jury verdict in the Eleventh 

Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge Reid for a ruling on all pre-trial non-dispositive matters and for a Report and 

Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. Judge Reid’s Report recommends that 

the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice as the petition is premature and Petitioner has failed 

to exhaust his state court remedies. Petitioner has failed to timely object to the Report.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection

is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the 

party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection 

is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, 

Case 1:20-cv-22363-DPG Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 

781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

The Court has reviewed the record and finds no clear error with Judge Reid’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Reid’s Report [ECF No. 6] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and 

incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED

without prejudice;

(3) No certificate of appealability shall issue; and 

(4) This case shall be CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of July, 2020. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-22363-DPG Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 2 of 2
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London by Direction of that court of 19 September 2005 in 1) J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment Trust Companies v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

(Case C-363/05)

(2005/C 330/14)

Language of the case: English

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by Direction of the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London, of 19 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1) J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment Trust Companies and Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs, on the following questions:

----

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1

----
IN REPLY 

 REFER TO:

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Mid-Pacific Regional Office 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, California 95825-1898

MP-3400 September 30, 2005 

WTR-4.00 

To: All Central Valley Project Municipal and Industrial Water Contractors 

Subject: Statement of Central Valley Project (CVP) Cumulative Municipal and Industrial (M&I) 

Operations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004 

Dear Water Contractor: 

Enclosed is a statement of the cumulative financial results of operations applicable to your CVP M&I 

water service contract as of September 30, 2004. This statement is provided for informational purposes 

and is not a bill. It should not be confused with our August 15, 2005, notification letter providing a 30-

day period to voluntarily pay off all or a portion of either your operation and maintenance or unpaid 

capital interest deficit(s) as recalculated under the recent M&I litigation settlement. 

The statement shows the beginning cumulative balances from the prior fiscal year, an adjustment to the 

prior year ending balances due to the recent M&I litigation settlement, the current fiscal year results of 

operations, the ending capital repayment and deficit balances, as applicable, as of September 30, 2004. 

The statement reflects interest accrued and voluntary payments through fiscal year 2004.

As indicated above, the enclosed statement is provided for informational purposes only and is not a bill. 

However, if you wish to voluntarily reimburse the Bureau of Reclamation for all or a portion of your 

deficit(s), if any, please contact Ms. Masako Altman at 916-978-5365 to determine the appropriate payoff 

amount as interest continues to accrue from September 30, 2004, until Reclamation receives payment. 

Such payments should be remitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 894242, 

Los Angeles, CA 90189-4242. A copy of the documents supporting the payment should also be sent to 

the attention of Ms. Altman at the Bureau of Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way – MP-3400, Sacramento, CA 95825-1898. Please state that the payment is to be applied to your 

deficit account on your transmittal and remittance. 

Any questions concerning the foregoing should be addressed to Ms. Altman at the above address, at 916- 

978-5365, (TDD 916-978-5608) or maltman@mp.usbr.gov. 

 Sincerely, 

 “SIGNED” 

 Lawrence J. Bauman 

 Manager, Ratesetting Services 

Enclosure
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22485-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

STEVEN J. TYMAN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

a Delaware corporation, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the 

“R&R”) of the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 50. 

Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration (the 

“Motion”) on August 14, 2020. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff Steven J. Tyman (“Tyman”) filed an 

opposition in response to the Motion on August 28, 2020. ECF No. 29. Ford filed its reply 

brief in support of the Motion on September 9, 2020. ECF No. 35. The undersigned referred 

the Motion to Judge Goodman for a report and recommendation on December 11, 2020. 

Judge Goodman issued the R&R on January 2021. ECF No. 48. Tyman filed his Objections 

to the R&R on February 3, 2021. 

In his R&R, Judge Goodman recommends that Ford’s Motion be granted and this 

matter be sent to arbitration. I have reviewed Ford’s Motion, Judge Goodman’s R&R, 

Tyman’s objections thereto, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. Having done so, I 

find Judge Goodman’s R&R to be clear, cogent, and compelling. Accordingly, Judge 

Goodman’s R&R (ECF No. 50) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. 

It is, therefore, ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 25) 

is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff Steven Tyman and Defendant Ford Motor Company are directed to 

Case 1:20-cv-22485-MGC Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2021 Page 1 of 2
arbitrate this matter in accordance with the terms of the Retail Lease Order and 

the Florida Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement. 

3. The Clerk of Courts is directed to STAY this case pending completion of the 

arbitration. 

4. The Clerk of Courts is also directed to CLOSE this case for administrative 

purposes only, and without prejudice to the Parties to move to re-open the case 

once the arbitration has been completed.

5. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon herein are DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 23rd day of February 

2021. 

Copies furnished to: 

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22485-MGC Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2021 Page 2 of 2
(No. 683

Claimant awarded $260.00.)

#### Stanley Stachowiak, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 10, 1927.*

Respondeat *superior*— State *not liable for torts of inmates of its institutions.*While the State is not liable for the torts of an inmate of its institution, an award may be made to claimant for an injury sustained and damage caused by the negligence of an inmate of its institution.

Gorey & Gorey, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages caused by reason of an accident which occurred on the morning of May 2, 1924, between six and seven o’clock at the intersection of Hickory and Euby streets in the city of Joliet, Illinois, whereby claimant was struck by a truck operated by an inmate of the state penitentiary.

*276The truck continued traveling after striking the claimant, for a distance of about fifteen feet or more, when it crashed into a curbing north of Buby street, and there is some testimony to the effect that the driver of the truck did not sound his horn until he was about to strike claimant. This testimony is contradicted by witnesses for the State. We are of the opinion that the driver of the State truck was guilty of negligence in not stopping his car when he saw the claimant crossing the street “head down.” It is the duty of the driver of an automobile or truck to keep a careful and prudent lookout for pedestrians, in order to avoid colliding with them. From the evidence submitted here on behalf of claimant, this was not done.

As the amount of damages, it appears from the evidence that claimant was disabled for a period of six months, and that he was earning about $3.60 a day, and that he incurred a doctor’s bill amounting to $50.00.

While we do not believe that there is any legal liability on the part of the State for damages sustained by the claimant, yet as a matter of equity and good conscience we award to claimant $260.00.