alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
  RULE
13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION FOR FORM 10-K (CEO) CERTIFICATION
  I, Gao
Zhentao, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Yuhe International,
Inc.;
  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. The
registrant’s other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 the Company by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
  b.
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;
  c.
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
  d.
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
  4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer 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 controls over financial
reporting.
 
   Date:
      April 22, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Gao ZhentaoGao
      ZhentaoChief
      Executive
Officer
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court g enerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 10 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN MARTIN NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-6354 (D.C. Nos. 95-CR-167-R & 97-CIV-1208-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

On January 24, 1996, pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant in this case pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon i n possession of a firearm and one count of possession of a controlled substance ( methamphetamine) with intent to distribute. (SeeR., Doc. #15.) On March 25, 1996, the district co urt imposed a sentence of 135 months in prison. (See R., Doc. #21.) The defendant failed to- 2 -

file a notice of appeal within the ten days allotte d by Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), and as a consequence, the judgment of his conviction becam e final on April 4, 1996. On July 23, 1997, the defendant filed a motion under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance o f counsel was violated by his lawyer’s failure to raise an ex post facto challeng e to his sentence. (See R., Doc. #28.) The district court denied this motion as unt imely, denied the defendant’s subsequent request for a certificate of appealabili ty, and denied his request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (See R., Doc. #34, 38, & 40.) In United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737, 746 (10th Cir. 1997), this court held that a defendant whose conviction became final before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penal ty Act, i.e., before April 24, 1996, had until April 23, 1997, to file a motion un der 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The defendant’s conviction became final on April 3, 199 6, and as a result, he had until April 23, 1997, to file his § 2255 motion. See Simmonds , 111 F.3d at 746. The defendant failed to meet this deadline, and as a re sult, we can see no justification for granting the requested certificate of appealabi lity under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Additionally, in light of the fact that the appellant has paid his appellate filing fee, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.- 3 -

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis; we DENY the appellant’s petition fo r a certificate of appealability, and we DISMISS this appeal.

The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property in the Block Bounded by East 47th Street and Other Streets, as Part of the Headquarters of the United Nations, in the Borough of Manhattan. Frank Catalano et al., Respondents-Appellants; William E. Green et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
### §403a. Creation or continuance of obstruction of navigable waters

The creation of any obstruction, not affirmatively authorized by law, to the navigable capacity of any waters, in respect of which the United States has jurisdiction, is hereby prohibited. The continuance of any such obstruction, except bridges, piers, docks, and wharves, and similar structures erected for business purposes, whether heretofore or hereafter created, shall constitute an offense and each week's continuance of any such obstruction shall be deemed a separate offense. Every person and every corporation which shall be guilty of creating or continuing any such unlawful obstruction in this act mentioned, or who shall violate the provisions of the last four preceding sections of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) not exceeding one year, or by both such punishments, in the discretion of the court, the creating or continuing of any unlawful obstruction in this act mentioned may be prevented and such obstruction may be caused to be removed by the injunction of any district court exercising jurisdiction in any district in which such obstruction may be threatened or may exist; and proper proceedings in equity to this end may be instituted under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States.

(Sept. 19, 1890, ch. 907, §10, 26 Stat. 454; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This act, referred to in text, is act Sept. 19, 1890, ch. 907, 26 Stat. 426. Sections 6 to 9 of the Act are not classified to the Code. For complete classification of this act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Text of section, which was previously omitted from the Code, was restored in view of conflicting court decisions as to whether or not section had been repealed or superseded. See eg. United States v. Wishkah Boom Co., 136 F. 42 (9th Cir. 1905), (appeal dismissed [1906] 202 U.S. 613); United States v. Wilson, 235 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1956).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each of the undersigned directors and officers of eFUNDS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, hereby constitutes and appoints Paul F. Walsh, Thomas S. Liston and
Steven F. Coleman, and each of them, as his or her true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power to act without the other, to sign the
Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, and
any and all amendments to such report, and to file the same and any such
amendments, together with any exhibits, and any other documents required in
connection with such filing, with the Securities and Exchange Commission under
the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Date
<S>                                                   <C>
/s/ Paul F. Walsh                                     2-18-05
------------------------------------
Paul F. Walsh, Chairman
And Chief Executive Officer

Thomas S. Liston                                      2-22-05
------------------------------------
Thomas S. Liston,
Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Richard J. Almeida                                2/10/05
------------------------------------
Richard J. Almeida, Director

/s/ John J. Boyle III                                 3/4/05
------------------------------------
John J. (Jack) Boyle III, Director

/s/ Janet M. Clarke                                   Jan 27, 2005
------------------------------------
Janet M. Clarke, Director

/s/ Richard J. Lehmann                                2/16/05
------------------------------------
Richard J. Lehmann, Director

/s/ Robert C. Nakasone
------------------------------------
Robert C. Nakasone, Director
</TABLE>

                                        1
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S>                                                   <C>
/s/ Sheila A. Penrose                                 Feb 1st 2005
------------------------------------
Sheila A. Penrose, Director

/s/ William J. Ryan                                   2/26/05
------------------------------------
William J. Ryan, Director

/s/ HA Tyabji                                         1-28-2005
------------------------------------
Hatim A. Tyabji, Director
</TABLE>

                                        2
Exhibit 8.1

| Legal Name                                                    |   | Place of Incorporation |   | Doing Business As        |   | Ownership %1 |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|
|                                                               |   |                             |   |                               |   |              |   |
| Lan      Argentina S.A.                                            |   | Argentina                        |   | Lan      Argentina                 |   | 99                | %      |
| Aerolinhas      Brasileras S.A.                                    |   | Brazil                           |   | ABSA                               |   | 73.3              | %      |
| Inmobiliaria      Aeronáutica S.A.                            |   | Chile                            |   | Inmobiliaria Aeronáutica |   | 100               | %      |
| Inversiones      Lan S.A.                                          |   | Chile                            |   | Inverlan                           |   | 99.7              | %      |
| Lan      Cargo S.A.                                                |   | Chile                            |   | Lan Chile Cargo          |   | 99.89             | %      |
| Lan      Pax Group S.A.                                            |   | Chile                            |   | Lan      Pax Group                 |   | 100               | %      |
| Transporte      Aéreo S.A.                                    |   | Chile                            |   | LanExpress                         |   | 100               | %      |
| Aerolane,      Líneas Aéreas Nacionales del Ecuador S.A. |   | Ecuador                          |   | Lan      Ecuador                   |   | 71.92             | %      |
| Aerotransporte      Mas de Carga S.A.                              |   | Mexico                           |   | Mas      Air                       |   | 69.15             | %      |
| Lan      Perú S.A.                                            |   | Peru                             |   | Lan      Perú                 |   | 70                | %      |
| Comercial      Masterhouse SA                                      |   | Chile                            |   | Comercial      Masterhouse         |   | 100               | %      |
| Linea      Aerea Nacional Chile S.A.                               |   | Chile                            |   | Lan      Chile                     |   | 100               | %      |
| Línea      Aérea Carguera de Colombia                    |   | Colombia                         |   | LANCO                              |   | 90                | %      |

----

| 1 | Percentage      of equity owned by Lan Airlines S.A. directly or indirectly through      subsidiaries or affiliates |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
### §208–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1091(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 722

Section, act Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, §8B, as added Aug. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–377, §8, 90 Stat. 1089, related to reports to Congress on leasing and production of coal lands, contents, recommendations, and reports by Attorney General on competition in the coal industry and on effectiveness of antitrust laws.
# White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions in the Oi l and Natural Gas Sector

Dear Sir or Madam, Please find the attached comments from Dominion Res ources Services, Inc. regarding the White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. Please contact me should you have questions or need further information. Thank you, Roberta J. Gellner Roberta J. Gellner, P.E. Environmental Regulation Manager Dominion Resources 55 Ashby Ridge Road Parkersburg, WV 26104 304.464.5961 (office) 304.203.0381 (cell)

CONFIDENTIALITY CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

NOTICE: NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and or privilege d and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMOD ITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the s ender without an additional express written confirmation to that eff ect. The information is intended solely for the ind ividual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you a re not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copy ing, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic t ransmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have recei ved the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. 

### 6) <roberta.j.gellner@dom.com>

- J Gellner (Services Roberta Mon 6/16/2014 8:53 AM
To: OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.go v>; 

###  1 attachment Dominion White Paper Comments.pdf; 

### Page **1 of**  **1 White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions in the Oi...** 
**- OilandGas.Whitepapers** 

**8/ 26/** **2014 https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/**
#### Ilverson Industries Incorporated, Respondent, v. Leon Viasmensky, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

 

No. 06-022 February 10, 2006

NRC REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON APPLICATION

FOR NORTH ANNA EARLY SITE PERMIT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

(Dominion), to supplement its revised application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna

nuclear power plant site, near Mineral, Va. 

Dominion submitted its initial application on Sept. 25, 2003, and submitted the revised

application on Jan. 13, 2006. The revision reflects a substantial design change to the cooling water

system; the proposal now includes a cooling tower rather than lake water to cool discharged water, in

order to respond to the state of Virginia’s concerns about water use. The proposed reactor has also

increased in power output, which will require additional staff review. The revision, however, does not

address several aspects of the changes, including the new cooling system’s impact on both humans and

wildlife downstream from the site.

“Our initial review of Dominion’s revisions pointed out several areas that require additional

detail,” said William Beckner, Deputy Director of the Division of New Reactor Licensing in the NRC’s

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “Once Dominion provides that information, it should take us

about nine months to finish our work on the ESP application.”

The NRC staff plans to meet with Dominion shortly to discuss these issues and the additional

information the agency is seeking. The staff will issue a supplement to both its draft environmental

impact statement (EIS) and safety evaluation report. The public will have an opportunity to comment

on the EIS supplement, and will hold a public meeting on the supplement.

The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related issues, such as environmental

impacts, for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site. If a permit

is granted, the applicant has up to 20 years to decide whether to build a new nuclear unit on the site and

to file an application with the NRC for approval to begin construction.

###
### §738. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXVIII, §11808(a)(9), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4165

Section, acts June 5, 1920, ch. 235, §1, 41 Stat. 880; Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, §20, 63 Stat. 563, provided that the Lighthouse Service should cooperate with the Coast Guard in marking certain anchorage grounds. The provision comprising this section may have already been repealed by section 20 of act Aug. 4, 1949, which Act enacted Title 14, Coast Guard. The table of repealed laws in that section did not include this Code section, but it did refer to the Act provision comprising this section in a footnote. The Lighthouse Service was consolidated in the Coast Guard by Reorg. Plan No. II of 1939, §2(a), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1432, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 05-123 September 6, 2005

NRC, STATES TO COORDINATE INCREASED CONTROLS 

OVER RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 33 Agreement States are coordinating efforts to

increase the control of radioactive materials that could potentially be of use to terrorists.

“We believe we have been successful in establishing an approach that achieves the common

objective of the NRC and the Agreement States of enhancing controls over certain radioactive

materials and enhancing the protection of public health and safety,” NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz said.

“This approach will leverage federal and state resources most effectively to increase protection and

accountability of these materials.”

Under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC has signed agreements with 33 states, relinquishing to

the states responsibility for regulating radioactive materials used in academia, industry and medicine.

The Agreement States regulate approximately 17,000 materials licensees, of which an estimated 1,650

will be affected by the new requirements. About 550 of the 5,000 NRC licensees in the remaining 17

states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also will be affected. The NRC retains exclusive

authority over nuclear power plants, fuel cycle facilities and research reactors; those licensees are not

affected by this decision.

Over approximately the next 90 days, affected NRC licensees will receive Orders from the

agency spelling out increased controls for certain radioactive materials. Over the same period,

individual Agreement States will issue their licensees legally binding requirements essentially identical

to the NRC’s Orders. Materials covered by these requirements will be consistent with the International

Atomic Energy Agency’s Code of Conduct for the Safety and Security of Radioactive Materials, which

is the internationally recognized standard for categorizing and protecting radioactive materials.

###
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-05-0006 - Second Status Paper on the Staff's Proposed Regulatory Structure for New Plant Licensing and Update on Policy Issues Related to New Plant Licensing

Accession Number: ML050120279

Date Released: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML043560093 - SECY-05-0006 - Second Status Paper on the Staff's Proposed Regulatory Structure for New Plant Licensing and Update on Policy Issues Related to New Plant Licensing. (13 page(s), 1/7/2005)
    - ML043560280 - SECY-05-0006 Atch1 - Regulatory Structure for New Plant Licensing, Part 1: Technology-Neutral Framework. (96 page(s), 12/31/2004)
    - ML043560335 - SECY-05-0006Atch2, 3, 4 - 2) INTEGRATED RISK 3) Definition of Defense-in-Depth 4) Assessment of Containment Options for Modular-HTGRs (17 page(s), 1/7/2005)
    - ML043560390 - SECY-05-0006AppendixA-G - Appendix for Regulatory Structure for New Plant Licensing, Part 1 (22 page(s), 1/7/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### Nellie E. Peck, Respondent, v. Nehring Company, a Domestic Corporation, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### Harry Friedman, Respondent, v. Pepsi Cola New York Bottling Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.
### §3609. Intent of Congress

It is the intent of Congress that funding provided to agencies of the Council to implement this chapter shall supplement, and not replace, existing sources of funding for other programs. It is the further intent of Congress that agencies of the Council shall not enter into contracts or agreements for the development or procurement of new Federal assets for the System that are estimated to be in excess of $250,000,000 in life-cycle costs without first providing adequate notice to Congress and opportunity for review and comment.

(Pub. L. 111–11, title XII, §12310, Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1436.)
### §6206. Data consistency and uniformity of data elements

The Director shall designate a single organizational unit to provide for data consistency and uniform reporting of data elements.

(Added Pub. L. 99–547, §2(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3059.)