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



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Scott C. Harvard, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Shore Financial Corporation;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant 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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 20, 2006 |  | /s/    SCOTT C.
HARVARD                               
|                     |  | Scott C. Harvard President and Chief Executive Officer



76
#### KOLB et al., Appellants, v. BINGER et al., Defendants, (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Respondent.)

(207 N. W. 65.)

(File No. 5537.

Opinion filed January 23, 1925.)

Appeal and Error — Principal and Surety — Moot Questions — Appeal From Order Releasing Surety On Supersedeas Bond Dismissed, As Involving Moot Questions, In View of Reversal of Judgment.

Appeal for order releasing, from' subsequent liability surety on supersedeas bond on appeal will be dismissed, as involving only moot question; judgment appealed from having been reversed and cause remitted.

Dillion, J., dissenting.

Appeal from 'Circuit Court, Spink County; Hon. Alva E. Taylor, Judge.

Action by Wilson H. Kolb- and another against Clarence Binger and another. From, an order releasing the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company from liability as surety on supersedeas bond and on appeal by defendants from judgment for plaintiffs, plaintiffs appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

*Staling, Clark & Grigsby,*of Redfield, for Appellants.

*Bailey & Voorhees,*of Sioux Falls, for Respondent.

GATES, P. J.

In the appeal in Kolb v. Binger (No. 5311) 49 S. D. 65, 206 N. W. 421, in which the opinion was handed down on December 9, 1925, the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company became surety on the supersedeas undertaking given by appellants Binger. Some weeks afterwards the surety sought to be released upon the claim' that its signature to the undertaking had been obtained by misrepresentation. The trial court granted relief from liability accruing after the date of the hearing of such motion. Plaintiffs Kolb appeal.

Inasmuch as the judgment in the main case has been vacated and the cause has been remitted, and there is therefore no liability on the undertaking, the question whether the trial court erred in relieving the surety from liability has become moot, and does not require consideration at the hands of this court.

The appeal in this case will therefore be dismissed without prejudice, and no costs will be taxed.

*303Note. — Reported in 207 N. W. 65. See, Headnote, American Key-numbered Digest, Appeal and Error, Key-No. 790(3), 4 C. J. Sec. 2396.

DILLON, J.

(dissenting). On account of the many contingent liabilities pertaining to this case, I cannot concur in its dismissal. No notice of any hearing was given, and the above decision in -case No. 5537 is ex parte. I am of the opinion that there is no statute in South. Dakota that would permit the canceling of the bond under the circumstances.
### Part B—Job Corps
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connect with the quarterly report of Tayco Developments, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2004 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

|Date: January 13, 2005 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                     
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Douglas P. Taylor,
Chief Executive Officer
#### Leon Gray, on Behalf of Himself and Other Stockholders of Steel Treating Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Charles Rattner et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Conrad S. Keyes, as Executor of Axel Josephsson, Deceased, Respondent. Mary H. Culbertson, as Administratrix with the Will Annexed of the Estate of Doris Sturges, Deceased, Appellant.

*911
      *Per Curiam,.*

We think the appellant’s default was excusable and that the affidavits present a sufficient issue as to whether the release was executed under a mistake of fact.

The orders should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to consolidate the application of Mary Haeseler Culbertson, as administratrix, etc., with the account of Conrad Saxe Keyes, as executor, etc., and to open her default granted.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Orders unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to consolidate the application of Mary Haeseler Culbertson, as administratrix, etc., with the account of Conrad Saxe Keyes, as executor, etc., and to open her default granted. Settle order on notice.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateLicensingLicense Fees

# Fees Transformation Accomplishments

In response to stakeholder comments and NRC staff input on the fee setting process, the Chief Financial Officer submitted a memorandum for Notation Vote (SECY–16–0097) to the Commission on August 15, 2016. This memorandum identified a number of process and policy improvements planned to be implemented over the next four years and requested Commission approval for further analysis. The Commission approved the process improvements along with the policy improvement to implement a voluntary pilot initiative to explore whether a flat-fee structure could be established for routine licensing matters in the area of uranium recovery. NRC staff has completed a number of improvements in this Fee Transformation project. The tables below list all the completed improvements.  The links on the tables transfer to NRC documents where the improvement was addressed.

On this page:
        - FY 2017 Process Improvements Implemented
        - FY 2018 Process Improvements Implemented
        - FY 2019 Process Improvements Implemented
        - FY 2020 Process Improvements Implemented

## FY 2017 Process Improvements Implemented

## FY 2018 Process Improvements Implemented

## FY 2019 Process Improvements Implemented

## FY 2020 Process Improvements Implemented

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, January 19, 2024
No: 23-017 March 3, 2023 

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Proposes to Amend Licensing, Inspection and Annual 

Fees for Fiscal Year 2023

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment regarding proposed 

changes to the licensing, inspection, special projects, and annual fees it will charge applicants 

and licensees for fiscal year 2023.

The proposed fee rule, published today in the Federal Register, reflects a total budget 

authority of $927.2 million, an increase of $39.5 million from FY 2022. 

Under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, the NRC is required to 

recover as much of its budget authority as possible, except funds for specific excluded activities.

After accounting for the exclusions from the fee-recovery requirement and net billing 

adjustments, the NRC must recover approximately $791.4 million in fees in FY 2023. Of this 

amount, approximately $195.4 million will be recovered through fees for service under 10 CFR 

Part 170 and $596.0 million through annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171. 

Compared to FY 2022, the proposed annual fees would decrease for the U.S. Department 

of Energy Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Program, one fuel facilities fee category, 

and some materials users fee categories. The proposed annual fees would increase for operating 

power reactors, most fuel facilities, spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning activities, nonpower production or utilization facilities, DOE transportation activities, the non-DOE uranium 

recovery licensee, and most materials users fee categories. While the operating power reactors 

annual fee is proposed to increase in FY 2023, it does not exceed the cap established under 

NEIMA.

The proposed fee rule includes an additional change affecting licensees and 

applicants.The NRC proposes to increase the hourly rate for services from $290 to $300 for 

FY 2023, and license application fees would be adjusted accordingly. 

The proposed rule includes detailed instructions on how to submit written comments. 

Comments will be accepted through April 3.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Oswaldo Zuccolo, Respondent, against Bruno De Paoli & Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Santry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.1


JEFFERSON HERITAGE BANK YEAR 2000 BONUS PLAN

         Under the Jefferson Heritage Bank Year 2000 Bonus Plan, senior officers
of the Bank are eligible to receive  bonuses equal to the following  percentages
of their salaries if the Company meets certain earnings per share goals:

         CEO                                         50%
         President                                   50%
         Senior Vice Presidents/Division Heads       40%
         Senior Vice Presidents                      30%
         Vice Presidents                             20%

         Participants  are  eligible to receive 50% of their bonus amount if the
Company  meets 92% of the  earnings  per share  target,  and 40% of their  bonus
amount if the Company achieves 89% of the target.
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–822

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4115, THE

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 570]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 570, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4115, the

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, under an open rule.

The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute, now printed in the bill, as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for

amendment at any point. The rule waives all points of order

against the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed

in the bill and made in order under the rule.

Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given priority

in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent

with House rules. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
No: 23-055 September 1, 2023 

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Public Meeting to Discuss American Centrifuge Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting Sept. 7 in Piketon, 

Ohio, to discuss the agency’s licensing and oversight of Centrus/American Centrifuge 

Operating’s American Centrifuge Plant. The discussion will focus primarily on Centrus’ 

enrichment of high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. 

The meeting will be in a hybrid format, so those unable to attend in person may 

participate online. It will be held from 6-8 p.m. Eastern time at the Pike County Career and 

Technology Center, 175 Beaver Creek Road in Piketon. NRC staff will discuss the NRC and 

Department of Energy’s roles for the plant and the Piketon site, as well as recent licensing and 

oversight activities related to HALEU. Staff from DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy also will 

make a short presentation on the need for HALEU, after which staff from both agencies will 

answer questions from the public. 

More information about the meeting is available in the NRC’s public meeting notice.
#### § 9269.3-1 General management. [Reserved]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-233

October 29, 1999

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The new Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Richard A. Meserve, was

sworn in this afternoon by the Honorable Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and

Technology, in a brief ceremony at the NRC’s headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Meserve comes to the Commission from the Washington, D.C. law firm of

Covington and Burling, where he was a partner. He holds a Ph.D. in applied physics from

Stanford, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and a B.A. from Tufts University.

The text of his remarks at the ceremony will be available on the NRC web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/s99-34.html

###
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1304 What are the effects of the filing of an appeal on the procurement at issue? ( a ) If a timely appeal is filed after contract award, the contracting officer must consider whether performance can be suspended until an appellate decision is rendered.
( b ) If a timely appeal is filed before contract award, the contracting officer must withhold award until the appellate decision is rendered, unless the contracting officer has determined that award and performance of the contract is in the best interests of the government.
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and PSEG Power Connecticut LLC ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and Order 8244 ModificationNo.3

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and PSEG Power Connecticut LLC ('Respondent) having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order 8244 and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: 1. All references to May 1, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits andNOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-I74-22(d)(1) through 22a-I74- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ('Regulations) are hereby replaced with May 1,2010. 2. Any references to October 1st with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009. 3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and retirement ofnon-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31, 2010. 4. All references to September 1,2008 with respectto the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 5. No laterthan May 1, 2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and Order 8244 and/or its subsequentmodifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-I74-22(d)(1) and 22a-I74-22(d)(2)(A) of the Regulations. 6. All otherterms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order 8244, as modified, shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street· Hartford, CT 06106-5127 http://www,ct.gov/dep All Equal Opportullity Employer

### PSEG Power Connecticut LLC 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8244 ModificationNo.3 The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Orderwithout further notice. PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Signature:

# _~~~""'-"-J 

# _ Name: 

## )Ulf-I A.

# ~t&.~ Title:

### ~!AN-I-**/1"w~e.'"** Date: A.l'",.j Ciloo9



### Issued as a modification ofa Trading Agreement and Order.

# ~c:::o d. 

# k Date 

## 04 

## -.:J.?

- 

## .;L='t Director Engineering and EnforcementDivision Bureau ofAirManagement
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-132 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, June 24, 1999)

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES RELATED

TO RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS FROM LICENSED FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated

with the release of solid materials having very small amounts of residual radioactivity from

licensed facilities.

The agency is considering revising its regulations in Part 20 of Title 10, Code of Federal

Regulations, to establish requirements for release of these materials. The NRC currently

evaluates licensee requests for release of solid materials on a case-by-case basis using

existing guidance. NRC has release limits in Part 20 for air and liquid emissions.

A document entitled “Issues Related to Release of Solid Materials from Licensed

Facilities” will be published shortly in the Federal Register. NRC is issuing it to foster public

discussion about the issues and alternatives involved before the start of any formal rulemaking

process. Copies of the paper will also be available from Roberta Gordon, Rulemaking and

Guidance Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20555, 301/415-7555, and

electronically from the NRC’s Internet web page at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake.

The issues paper is also intended as a starting point for discussion at these four public

meetings to solicit early public input on major issues associated with the release of solid

materials:

Aug. 4-5: Hyatt Regency McCormick Place, 2233 South Martin Luther King

Drive, Chicago.

Sept. 15-16: Radisson Miyako Hotel, 1625 Post Street, San Francisco.

Oct. 5-6: Crown Plaza Atlanta Powers Ferry, 6345 Powers Ferry Road NW,

Atlanta.

Nov. 1-2: NRC Auditorium, Two White Flint North, 15545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

All meetings will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time. Interested persons are

invited to attend the meetings or to submit written comments by November 15 to the Secretary,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the NRC’s

Internet website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake.
Based on comments received in written and electronic form, and at the public meetings,

the Commission will be in a better position to decide whether to develop a proposed rule on this

subject or take some other regulatory action. If the Commission decides to proceed with a

proposed rule, any proposals will be published in the Federal Register for public comment.

###
#### In the Matter of Russell T. Brooks et al. against William O’Dwyer, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Grlennon, Dore, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 957.]