alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

              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 Distribution y Servicio D&S S.A (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Cristobal Lira, Chief Executive 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:

      (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.

/s/ CRISTOBAL LIRA

Cristobal Lira
Chief Executive Officer
Distribucion y Servicio D&S S.A
Dated: June 30, 2004
#### Hartown Realty Corporation, Respondent, v. Michael Flynn Mfg. Co., Appellant.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.
Order entered May 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01757-CR

JOE SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-56498-Y

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On April 22, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On May 27, 2014, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the April 22, 2014 order 

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-03-022 March 28, 2003

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

 

NRC TO MEET WITH DUKE ENERGY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT McGUIRE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Duke Energy officials on

Friday, April 4, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the

McGuire nuclear power plant near Huntersville, North Carolina.

The meeting will be held at 10:30 a.m. in the Community Room at the North County Regional

Branch of the Charlotte and Mecklenburg County Public Library, located off Exit 25 of I-77 at 16500

Holly Crest Lane in Huntersville. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will

be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer any questions.

A letter from the NRC to Duke Energy addresses plant safety performance during the previous

year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter states that, overall, McGuire operated

in a manner that preserved public health and safety and that plant performance was at a level requiring

no additional NRC inspection beyond the normal baseline activities. The letter, which is available

from Region II Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mcg_2002q4.pdf , says the NRC staff will also

conduct inspections of the plant’s implementation of NRC security advisories and Orders, review the

plant staff’s activities in response to an NRC Bulletin on reactor vessel heads and vessel head

penetrations, administer operator licensing examinations and conduct routine inspections of the plant’s

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

 Current performance indicators for the two units at the McGuire plant are available at 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MCG1/mcg1_chart.html and 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MCG2/mcg2_chart.html

###
### §607. Lump-sum payments for annual leave to separated employees

(a) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall have the authority to make lump-sum payments to separated employees of the Congressional Budget Office for unused annual leave.

(b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996.

(Pub. L. 104–197, title I, §106, Sept. 16, 1996, 110 Stat. 2404.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Congressional Operations Appropriations Act, 1997, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997, and not as part of title II of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.
Exhibit 10.2


Warsaw
March 27, 2002


Attention:
Security Exchange Commission


We received from Arthur Andersen Sp. z o.o. the following representation:
"We represent that audit of your financial statements was subject to our quality
control  system  for the  U.S.  accounting  and  auditing  practice  to  provide
reasonable  assurance  that the  engagement  was  conducted in  compliance  with
professional  standards,  that  there was  appropriate  continuity  of  Andersen
personnel  working on the audit,  availability of national office  consultation,
and  availability of personnel at foreign  affiliates of Andersen to conduct the
relevant portions of the audit."


Management Board
Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa Sp. z o.o.
Al. Jerozolimskie 181
02-222 Warszawa
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00382-CR

____________________

ROBERT JASON LOGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR28367

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The trial court sentenced Robert Jason Logan on February 10, 2012. Logan 

filed a notice of appeal on September 27, 2018, more than thirty days after 

sentencing. We notified the parties that our jurisdiction was not apparent from the 

notice of appeal and further notified them that the appeal would be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal. Logan filed a response in which he argues that he timely filed a notice of 

appeal from the trial court’s September 10, 2018, order denying Logan’s motion to 
2

enter a judgment nunc pro tunc. An order denying Logan’s motion for judgment 

nunc pro tunc is not independently appealable. See Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 

735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d).1 We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on October 30, 2018

Opinion Delivered October 31, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

 

1 A nunc pro tunc judgment is appealable. Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 

904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In this case, however, the trial court denied Logan’s 

request and did not sign a judgment nunc pro tunc.
### §1815. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §101(c), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 606

Section, Pub. L. 105–275, title III, §310, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2456, related to energy conservation and management.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 166i of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
### §571. Declaration of policy

It is hereby recognized that the presence of large volumes of water in anthracite coal formations involves serious wastage of the fuel resources of the Nation, and constitutes a menace to health and safety and national security. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the Congress to provide for the control and drainage of water in the anthracite coal formations and thereby conserve natural resources, promote national security, prevent injuries and loss of life, and preserve public and private property, and to seal abandoned coal mines and to fill voids in abandoned coal mines, in those instances where such work is in the interest of the public health or safety.

(July 15, 1955, ch. 369, §1, 69 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 87–818, §1(1), Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 934.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Pub. L. 87–818 declared it to be the policy of the Congress "to seal abandoned coal mines and to fill voids in abandoned coal mines, in those instances where such work is in the interest of the public health or safety".
#### § 178.1 Purpose.

This part sets forth the control numbers assigned to information collections of the Customs Service by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. This part complies with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and implements regulations promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget, (5 CFR 1320.7(f)(2), 1320.12(d) and 1320.13(j)) which require that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for each agency information collection.

[T.D. 85-53, 50 FR 11849, Mar. 26, 1985]
# FILED
MAY 1 1 2016

101 1947A 

# rTha-W, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No, 70256 FELTON L. MATTHEWS, JR., Appellant, vs. LAS VEGAS JUSTICE COURT, LAS VEGAS TOWNSHIP; LAS VEGAS JUSTICE COURT CLERK DEPARTMENT 7; WARDEN D. NEVEN; TRINITY PHARRIS; SGT. KIM; SGT. SHIELDS; CO COIN; CO CROPPER; CO JAMES WILSON; CO J. HOLLINGSWORTH; CO J. RIGNEY; SKY HOFFMAN; CO A. SAUNDERS: DIRECTOR JAMES G COX; THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND SKYE HOMAN, Respondents.


### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from an order granting a motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joanna Kishner, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears the district court has not yet entered a final written order, and the notice of appeal was prematurely filed. The district court held its hearing on April 5, 2016, at which time it dismissed the case. To date no written order appears to have been entered. Thus, this appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal at this time. 

### See NRAP 4(a)(6) (providing that "[a] premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

# qA

s d r 

# , 9 1 J Douglas jurisdiction" and that this court "may dismiss as premature a notice of appeal filed after the oral pronouncement of a decision or order but before entry of the written judgment or order"); Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1381-82 (1987) (explaining that oral rulings are ineffective for appeal purposes and that a written order or judgment must be filed before a district court ruling can be appealed). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Cherry

cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge Felton L. Matthews, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
MI I 907A 0/W
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o s . 04

- 16

- 00582

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00583

- CR Eliezer CRUZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No s . 2016CR4935 & 2015 CR9345

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: De cember 7, 2016 DISMISSED On September 27 , 2016, this co urt issued an order stating these appeal s would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of each appellate record within thirty days of the order. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 175

- 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). Before we issued the order, a ppellant’s counsel filed a “Motion For Leave to With draw as Counsel on Appeal” in which he states appe llant has no right to appeal the judgment s pursuant to Rule 25.2. In light of the record presented, we agree that Rule 25.2(d) req uires this04

- 16

- 00582

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00583

- CR

- 2

- court to dismiss these appeal s . T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). The r ecord does not contain a certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s rec ord contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by appellant ; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that appellant has no right of a ppeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). PER CURIAM Do not publish
Editorial Note on Part 174
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 174.31 Judicial review of denial of protest. Any person whose protest has been denied, in whole or in part, may contest the denial by filing a civil action in the United States Court of International Trade in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2632 within 180 days after— ( a ) The date of mailing of notice of denial, in whole or in part, of a protest,
( b ) The date a protest, for which accelerated disposition was requested, is deemed to have been denied in accordance with § 174.22(d), or
( c ) The date that a protest is deemed denied in accordance with § 174.21(b), or § 151.16(g) of this chapter.
[T.D. 78-17, 43 FR 1938, Jan. 13, 1978, as amended by T.D. 85-90, 50 FR 21430, May 24, 1985; T.D. 99-65, 64 FR 43612, Aug. 11, 1999]
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Hardecker et al., Appellants, against Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.3010 Right to make post-importation claim and refund duties.

Notwithstanding any other available remedy, where a good would have qualified as an originating good when it was imported into the United States but no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made, the importer of that good may file a claim for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the good in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 10.3011. Subject to the provisions of § 10.3008, CBP may refund any excess duties by liquidation or reliquidation of the entry covering the good in accordance with § 10.3012(c).
### §3111. New issue used to buy, redeem, or refund outstanding obligations

An obligation may be issued under this chapter to buy, redeem, or refund, at or before maturity, outstanding bonds, notes, certificates of indebtedness, Treasury bills, or savings certificates of the United States Government. Under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, money received from the sale of an obligation and other money in the general fund of the Treasury may be used in making the purchases, redemptions, or refunds.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 942.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3111 | 31:754a. | Sept. 24, 1917, ch. 56, 40 Stat. 288, §19; added Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, §14(a)(4), 48 Stat. 343; restated Mar. 28, 1942, ch. 205, §4, 56 Stat. 189. |

The words "regulations of" are substituted for "rules, regulations, terms, and conditions . . . may prescribe" to eliminate unnecessary words.
### §541. Entry and location; filing of copy of notice of mining location; report and payment for lignite mined; mineral patents; reservation of minerals to United States

Subject to the conditions and provisions of this chapter and to any valid intervening rights acquired under the laws of the United States, public lands of the United States classified as or known to be valuable for coal subject to disposition under the mineral leasing laws and which are open to location and entry subject to the conditions and provisions of chapter 12 of this title, unless embraced within a coal prospecting permit or lease, shall also be open to location and entry under the mining laws of the United States upon the discovery of a valuable source material occurring within any seam, bed, or deposit of lignite in such lands: Provided, That a copy of the notice of any mining location made for source material occurring in any such bed, seam, or deposit, shall be filed for record in the land office of the Bureau of Land Management for the State in which the claim is situated within ninety days after the date of its location: Provided further, That the claimant to any such mining location shall report annually to the Mining Supervisor of the Geological Survey the amount of lignite mined or stripped in the recovery of such valuable source material during each calendar year and tender payment to him of 10 cents per ton thereon. Any mineral patents issued hereunder shall be made subject to the recording and payment requirements of this section and shall contain a reservation to the United States of all Leasing Act minerals owned by the United States other than lignite containing valuable source material and lignite necessary to be stripped or mined in the recovery of such material. Mining claims located and mineral patents issued under the provisions of this chapter shall not include rights to lignite not containing valuable source material except to the extent it may be necessary to mine or strip such lignite in order to mine the source material and, with respect to lode claims, shall not include extralateral rights. For all purposes of this chapter "source material" and "lignite" shall have the meanings given in section 541e of this title.

(Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 795, §1, 69 Stat. 679.)
#### §§ 201.112-201.129 [Reserved]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****U.S. Marines in Iraq, 2003:Basrah, Baghdad and beyond**
 
Parts: One | Two| Three | Four| Five | Six| Seven
 
SuDoc:D 214.13:IR 1/2
Item Number:0383-B
CGPsystem Number: 000619759
 
November 7, 2017
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATIONS

I, William B. Plummer, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America), Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2011;
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|April 16, 2012         
|                       
|/s/ WILLIAM B. PLUMMER 
|William B. Plummer     
|Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1630.9 Access to the history (accounting) of disclosures from records.

Rules governing access to the accounting of disclosures are the same as those for granting access to the records as set forth in § 1630.4.
#### In the Matter of David Zinn, Judgment-Creditor-Appellant, against Maude V. Hallock, Judgment-Debtor-Respondent.

No opinion. Present •— Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [194 Mise. 604.]
U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet

DESERT HAWK SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM

Mission

The Desert Hawk Small Unmanned Aircraft 

System or UAS provides real-time overhead 

video imagery for Air Force security forces 

providing force protection, air base defense 

and convoy protection. Desert Hawk is part 

of the integrated base defense system. 

Features

The Desert Hawk UAS features six air 

vehicles or AVs, a ground control station, 

remote video terminal, day-night camera 

capability, transportation cases, launch 

equipment and ground spares and 

equipment. A two-person crew using a 

bungee-cord catapult system launches the 

Desert Hawk. Desert Hawk can be 

autonomously flown using a laptop 

computer with dynamic re-tasking and ondemand manual steering override. A twobladed propeller driven by an electric motor powers the Desert Hawk. 

Background

Developed by Lockheed Martin, Desert Hawk's original concept was to provide a ring of 

protection around air bases at forward locations for Air Force security forces. In July 2002, 

systems were delivered to the Air Force as part of the Force Protection Airborne Surveillance 

System requirement. Desert Hawk was rapidly fielded to support security forces deployed in U. 

S. Central Command's area of operations. It has proven its worth supporting not only Air Force 

assets but also Army forces involved in convoy protection and base defense. 

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Real-time force protection and reconnaissance, and perimeter assessment 

Contractor: Lockheed Martin 

Power Plant: Electric motor, rechargeable lithium ion batteries 

Wingspan: 4.3 feet (1.31 meters) 

Length: 2 feet 10 in (.8 meters) 

Weight: (aerial vehicle) 7 lbs (3.2 kilograms)

Speed: 35-55 mph (30-48 knots) 

Operating Altitude: 200-1000 ft air ground level (AGL) (60-300meters) 

Initial Operating Capability: 2002 

System Cost: approximately $224,000 (2004 dollars) 

Payload: High resolution, day/night camera and thermal imager 

Inventory: Classified

Point of Contact

Air Force Special Operations Command, Public Affairs Office; 229 Cody Ave.; Hurlburt Field, 

Fla. 32544-5273; DSN 579-5515 or 850-884-5515.

November 2007

Desert Hawk

Air Force Link - Fact Sheet (Printable) : DESERT HAWK SMALL UNMANNED AIRC... Page 1 of 1

mhtml:file://C:\Users\tdefosse\AppData\Local\Temp\Air Force Link - Fact Sheet (Printabl... 5/18/2017