alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATION

                                 EXHIBIT 31

                               CERTIFICATIONS

I, Helen M. Dickens, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fund America
Investors Corporation II;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly 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 officers 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 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 controls, 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:    May 13, 2005                          /s/ Helen M. Dickens
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Helen M. Dickens
                                             President/(Principal
                                             Financial Officer)
No. 12,855.

#### Terrace Irrigation District *v.*Neff.

(19 P. [2d] 754)

Decided February 20, 1933.

*279Mr. George M. Corlett, Mr. Claude W. Corlett, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Cass M. Herrington, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Hilliard

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit for injunction against a district water commissioner. A demurrer on the ground of defect of parties defendant was sustained. Plaintiff having elected to stand on its complaint, judgment of dismissal was entered. Error is assigned.

Plaintiff challenges the holding below on authority of *San Luis Valley Irrigation District v. Carr,*79 Colo. 340, 245 Pac. 705, but we are persuaded to the view of the learned trial judge that the case is distinguishable. There the demurrer was general, while here it is directed to the point of defect of parties defendant; the causes are unlike in allegations, and in consequence defendant’s relation to the subject matter is different. Here, while plaintiff prayed that the water official be enjoined from making distribution of water at a point other than that alleged to have been decreed to the owners of another ditch, as in the Carr case, unlike that case, plaintiff’s major purpose, as clearly appears, is to have judgment to the effect that in making distribution defendant shall not order a greater flow past plaintiff’s headgates for the use of the owner’s of Head Overflow Ditch No. 5 than existing priority decrees justify, and which plaintiff would have curtailed in accordance with its interpretation of the said decrees. In the situation indicated claimants under ditch 5 are interested parties, and indispen*280sable to tbe judicial inquiry wbicb plaintiff would inaugurate by this suit.

Tbe rule wbicb we think is controlling is well stated in *McLean v. Farmers’ High Line Canal and Reservoir Co., 44*Colo. 184, 98 Pac. 16, from wbicb we quote tbe following: “It is doubtless true,” tbe court said, “that water officials must distribute the waters of a district or division according to adjudicated priorities, but when they are avowedly attempting to do so, as it is made to appear from tbe pleadings in tbis case, their action cannot be interfered with either by interlocutory order or final judgment unless tbe real parties in interest are parties to tbe action.” See, also, *Squire v. Livezey,*36 Colo. 302, 85 Pac. *181;*Long on Irrigation (2d Ed.), §265; 2 Wiel Water Rights (3d Ed.), §1196.

Tbe demurrer was properly sustained and tbe ruling is approved. In relation to tbe final judgment, however, wbicb was entered as a matter of course, tbe court in its discretion, plaintiff promptly moving to that end, may order vacation, and grant plaintiff leave to amend and join other parties as advised. Failing wbicb tbe judgment shall stand affirmed.

Mr. Justice Butler and Mr. Justice Campbell concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7471

KEVIN DEVON HOGUE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-05-374-2) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Devon Hogue, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kevin Devon Hogue seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court denied the petition on the grounds that it was successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hogue has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
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. 97-045 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, March 21, 1997)

NRC APPROVES MASSACHUSETTS AGREEMENT TO REGULATE USE OF CERTAIN

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved an agreement

with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under which the State will

assume part of NRC's regulatory authority over the use of certain

radioactive materials. The agreement was published in the

Federal Register last December, and will become effective today.

Under the agreement, NRC will transfer to Massachusetts the

responsibility for licensing, rulemaking, inspection and

enforcement concerning the use of (1) radioactive materials

produced as byproducts of the operation of nuclear reactors; (2)

uranium and thorium source materials; and (3) small quantities

of fissionable materials.

The agreement also allows the Commonwealth to regulate the

land disposal of radioactive waste and to conduct safety

evaluations of sealed radioactive sources and devices for medical

and industrial use.

Approximately 430 current NRC licenses, most of them for

medical and industrial users, will be transferred to the

Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Department of Health will

administer the regulatory program.

The NRC has determined that the Commonwealth's radiation

control program is adequate to protect public health and safety

and is compatible with the agency's own program for regulating

the radioactive materials covered in the agreement.

Massachusetts becomes the 30th State to sign such an

agreement with NRC. Other states which have previously assumed

this authority are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,

Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah and Washington.
#
December 15, 2010 Summary of Community Water Systems in the Atrazine Monitoring Program2 

### Current Status of the AMP ● 88 CWS are currently enrolled in the monitoring program ● Length of AMP participation (as of December 2010) - 12 CWS: <4 years - 5 CWS: 4.5 to 5 years - 2 CWS: 5 to 7 years - 69 CWS: Starting 9th season of monitoring in 2011 ● No 90-day raw water rolling averages have approached or exceeded 37.5 ppb (atrazine + TCT) Footer text3 AMP – Single Maximum Total TCT Values in Raw Water ● 51 CWS in AMP have never had a single raw water sample exceed12.5 ppb (total TCT)

- 38 CWS have 5 or more seasons of monitoring data - 37 have 7 or more seasons - 3 with 4.5 to 5 seasons of participation - 10 with <4 years of participation4 Classification of CWS by Raw Water Source Properties ● CWS with no single -sample total TCT value >12.5 ppb (5+ seasons participation)

- 41 total - 28 static sources - 13 flowing water bodies5 CWS never exceeding 12.5 ppb Total TCT ● 41 CWS have never exceeded 12.5 ppb Total TCT (ATR, Sim , Degradates)

- 28 are Static • All have a maximum 4 day Rolling average < 10.1 ppb (25 <7 ppb) • All have a maximum 30 day rolling average < 8.9 ppb (25 < 5.5ppb) • 24 have 90 day rolling averages of <5 ppb • 25 have > 200 samples - 13 are Flowing • All have a maximum 4 day Rolling average < 11.1 ppb (10 <8 ppb) • All have a maximum 30 day rolling average < 6.53 ppb (11 < 5 ppb) • 12 have 90 day rolling averages < 4 ppb • 10 have > 224 samples
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23911]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1569-DR]


Minnesota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Minnesota (FEMA-1569-DR), dated October 7, 2004, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective September 27, 2004.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 04-23911 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the annual report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K/A for the year ended April 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Byrne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

Dated: March 16,2009 

 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosure statement. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert Glaser, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of RealNetworks, Inc.; and


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.


Date: April 30, 2013


/s/ Robert Glaser


Robert Glaser


Chairman and interim Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1612

To make permanent the tax benefits enacted by the Economic Growth and 

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2003

Mr. HULSHOF (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. 

ENGLISH, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. LEWIS

of Kentucky, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CRANE, Mr. COX, Mr. 

HALL, Mr. AKIN, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 

GOODE, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. 

GRAVES, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. MICA, 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. KING of New 

York, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. PITTS, Mr. SWEENEY, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, 

Mr. KIRK, Mr. TERRY, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. FORBES, Mr. 

REHBERG, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. 

HOSTETTLER, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. HAYES, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. 

WAMP, Mr. KLINE, Mr. NEY, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. 

WELDON of Florida, Mr. UPTON, Mr. CARTER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, 

Mr. CANNON, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. 

MCCOTTER, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. 

FLAKE, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BARTLETT of 

Maryland, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. SULLIVAN, 

Mr. ISTOOK, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, 

Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. 

CULBERSON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. POMBO, 

and Mr. FEENEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To make permanent the tax benefits enacted by the 

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
2

•HR 1612 IH 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TAX BENEFITS ENACTED BY ECONOMIC 

4 GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION 

5 ACT OF 2001 MADE PERMANENT. 

6 The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

7 Act of 2001 is amended by striking title IX (relating to 

8 sunset of provisions of Act).

Æ
#### § 1650.21 Information provided by employing agency or service.

When a TSP participant separates from Government service, his or her employing agency or service must report the separation and the date of separation to the TSP record keeper. Until the TSP record keeper receives this information from the employing agency or service, it will not pay a post-employment distribution.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2017

No. 04-17-00679-CV

IN RE SOUTHCROSS ENERGY PARTNERS, GP, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Citing section 9(c) of the court’s Internal Operating Procedures (“IOPs”), the real parties 

in interest have requested clarification of the composition of the panel assigned to this original 

proceeding. Pursuant to section 8(e) of our IOPs, a panel is assigned to an original proceeding 

upon receipt of a petition. In accordance with section 8(e), the clerk of the court assigned the 

panel of Chief Justice Marion, Justice Barnard, and Justice Martinez to this original proceeding 

upon the filing of relator’s petition on October 16, 2017. Although section 9(c) permits a panel 

assigned to an original proceeding to determine that the same panel should be assigned to 

another related matter, section 9(c) only applies when the other matter is “pending” in the court. 

Because original proceeding no. 04-17-00626-CV was dismissed on October 4, 2017, it was not 

“pending” in this court when relator filed its petition in this original proceeding. Accordingly, 

section 9(c) had no relevance in assigning the panel to this original proceeding.

It is so ORDERED on November 17, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________

Keith E. Hottle, 

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. DC-16-139, styled Ivy Gonzalez on Behalf of M. R. Gonzalez, et 

al. v. Southcross Energy Partners, GP LLC, pending in the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas, the 

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
     from the September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its 
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                         <C>                   <C>
              
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998       DEC-31-1998    
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998       JAN-01-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998       SEP-30-1998   
<CASH>                           32,563             32,563               
<SECURITIES>                          0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                    21,419             21,419 
<ALLOWANCES>                        658                658 
<INVENTORY>                           0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 61,442             61,442 
<PP&E>                           36,070             36,070 
<DEPRECIATION>                   17,026             17,026 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  234,441            234,441  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            20,671             20,671              
<BONDS>                               0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                  0
<PREFERRED>                           0                  0
<COMMON>                            193                193
<OTHER-SE>                       86,431             86,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    234,441            234,441  
<SALES>                               0                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 28,936             76,760                 
<CGS>                                 0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    10,911             29,927               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,567              7,740             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,312              6,426              
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   6,527             10,951              
<INCOME-TAX>                      2,586              4,661           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,941              6,290               
<DISCONTINUED>                        0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                  0   
<CHANGES>                             0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      3,941              6,290  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.21               0.33            
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.21               0.33            
        

<FN>
NOTE: Due to the change in computing EPS per FASB No. 128, the tags per the 
FDS schedule will correspond to FASB No. 128 as follows: 
     FDS tag                  FASB No. 128
     EPS - Primary            EPS - Basic
     EPS - Diluted            EPS - Diluted

</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 2422.24 What are challenged ballots? ( a ) *Filing challenges.* A party or the Regional Director may, for good cause, challenge the eligibility of any person to participate in the election.
( b ) *Challenged ballot procedure.* An individual whose eligibility to vote is in dispute will be given the opportunity to vote a challenged ballot. If the parties and the Region are unable to resolve the challenged ballot(s) before the tally of ballots, the Region will impound and preserve the unresolved challenged ballot(s) until the Regional Director makes a determination, if necessary.