alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, David G. Powers certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Heritage Bankshares of Florida,Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.           Date: May 6, 2005   By: /s/ David G. Powers                     David G. Powers, President and Chief              Executive Officer  
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### C. A. Smith Lumber Company, Respondent, v. Colonial Assurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed,, with costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Scott, Smith, Page and Davis, JJ.
### Part I—National Coordination of Elder Justice Activities and Research
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21145-21146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 3, 2012

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0032.
    Date Filed: March 3, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 23, 2012.
    Description: Application of All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. (``ANA'') 
requesting an exemption and an amended foreign air carrier permit ANA 
to operate the following services: (i) Scheduled foreign air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail (separately or in 
combination) from points behind Japan via Japan and intermediate points 
to a point or points in the United States and beyond; (ii) charter 
foreign air transportation of persons, property, and

[[Page 21146]]

mail (separately or in combination) between any point or points in 
Japan and any point or points in the United States and between any 
point or points in the United States and any point or points in any 
third country; and, (iii) other charters.

Renee V. Wright,
 Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-8453 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
No: IV-14-025 December 9, 2014

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Neil Day as the new resident inspector 

at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant in Port Gibson, Miss.

 “Neil Day’s technical experience will assist the NRC in carrying out 

its mission to protect people and the environment by ensuring the safe 

operation of Grand Gulf,” said NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas.

Neil joined the NRC in 2008 as a structural engineer in the Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in Rockville, Md. He successfully 

completed the Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program and was 

fully qualified as a technical reviewer in 2011. He worked as a project 

engineer in the Region I Division of Reactor Projects where he supported 

and implemented the reactor oversight process. He also provided resident 

inspector support to the Vermont Yankee plant and served as an acting 

resident inspector at the Millstone plant in Connecticut earlier this year. 

Neil holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University. 

 Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two resident inspectors. Day joins 

senior resident inspector Richard Smith. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, 

conducting inspections, monitoring significant work projects, and interacting with plant workers and 

the public.

 The Grand Gulf resident inspectors can be reached at 601-437-4620.
#### Israel Pomerantz, Respondent, v. Malcolm R. White, Individually and as Agent of Chester Cable Corporation, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
### Subpart 2—Exclusion of Plans; Enforcement; Preemption

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subpart 2 designation and heading was transferred along with sections 300gg–21 to 300gg–23 of this title to appear before section 300gg–25 of this title to reflect the renumbering of the sections in the original act by Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §§1001(4), 1563(c)(12)(D), (13)(C), (14)(B), formerly §1562(c)(12)(D), (13)(C), (14)(B), title X, §10107(b)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 130, 269, 911.

Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1563(c)(11), formerly §1562(c)(11), title X, §10107(b)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 268, 911, redesignated subpart 4 as subpart 2.

Pub. L. 104–204, title VI, §604(a)(2), Sept. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 2939, redesignated subpart 3 as 4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Yacenda, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed arid MacCrate, JJ.
§ 1061.3 Statutory considerations. ( a ) The Commission's statutory preemption provisions provide, generally, that whenever consumer products are subject to certain Commission statutes, standards, or regulations, a State or local requirement applicable to the same product is preempted, i.e., superseded and made unenforceable, if both are designed to protect against the same risk of injury or illness, unless the State or local requirement is identical to the Commission's statutory requirement, standard, or regulation. A State or local requirement is not preempted if the product it is applicable to is for the State or local government's own use and the requirement provides a higher degree of protection than the Commission's statutory requirement, standard, or regulation.
( b ) The Commission's statutory preemption provisions provide, generally, that if a State or local government wants to enforce its own requirement that is preempted, the State or local government must seek an exemption from the Commission before any such enforcement. The Commission may, by regulation, exempt a State or local requirement from preemption if it finds that the State or local requirement affords a significantly higher degree of protection than the Commission's statute, standard, or regulation, and that it does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Such findings must be included in any exemption regulation.
Exhibit 10.1


DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION FOR
NON-EMPLOYEE

DIRECTORS OF NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION


As of June 28, 2007, non-employee directors of
Northwest Airlines Corporation (the “Company”) receive an annual cash retainer
of $50,000, an annual fee of $5,000 for service on a committee of the Board,
and a fee of $1,500 for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended.  The Chairman of the Board of Directors
receives an additional annual retainer of $100,000, the Chairman of the Audit
Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000, and the Chairman
of each of the other standing committees of the Board receives an additional
annual retainer of $15,000.  In addition,
directors and their spouses and dependent children receive complimentary
positive-space travel privileges on Northwest Airlines and $25,000 per year of
travel on Northwest Airlines and its affiliate airlines that may be extended to
other individuals.  Each non-employee
director is reimbursed for income taxes resulting from use of the complimentary
travel privileges by the director, his or her spouse and dependent children and
for reasonable expenses incurred by the director in connection with his or her
service on the Board.  Board fees are
paid quarterly.


On June 28, 2007, subject to receipt by the Company of
all approvals required for the grant of such awards, each non-employee director
received an equity award in the form of 10,975 restricted stock units (“RSUs”)
and an option to purchase 7,317 shares of common stock of the Company at a
price per share equal to the closing price of a share of common stock on the
New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant (the “Options”).  The RSUs and Options vest in installments
over four years and any unvested portion of such awards are forfeitable in the
event the director ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors prior to the
full vesting of such awards other than in connection with a change in control
of the Company.  The Options expire ten
years after the date of grant.  In the event
all approvals required for the grant of such awards are not obtained by the
Company on or before May 31, 2008, the awards will be canceled.  No new equity awards will be granted to the
current directors during the next four years.
#### § 1105.14 Audit and examination.

The Commission and the Comptroller General of the United States, or their duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any pertinent books, documents, papers and records of a participant receiving compensation under this section. The Commission may establish additional guidelines for accounting, recordkeeping, and other administrative procedures with which participants must comply as a condition of receiving a contribution.
§ 1513.5 Marking and labeling. ( a ) There shall be a permanent label or marking on each bed stating the name and address (city, state, and zip code) of the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer; the model number; and the month and year of manufacture.
( b ) The following warning label shall be permanently attached to the inside of an upper bunk bed end structure in a location that cannot be covered by the bedding but that may be covered by the placement of a pillow.
### §11352. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $180,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $187,560,000 for fiscal year 1994.

(Pub. L. 100–77, title III, §322, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 493; Pub. L. 100–628, title III, §302, Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3229; Pub. L. 101–645, title II, §201, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4675; Pub. L. 102–550, title XIV, §1431, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4043.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–550 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 and 1992."

1990—Pub. L. 101–645 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $129,000,000 for fiscal year 1989 and $134,000,000 for fiscal year 1990."

1988—Pub. L. 100–628 amended section generally, substituting "$129,000,000 for fiscal year 1989 and $134,000,000 for fiscal year 1990" for "$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 and $124,000,000 for fiscal year 1988".
#### § 23.27 Misuse of the words “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” etc.

It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” “semi-precious,” or similar terms to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.
§ 10.22 Complaint and notice of hearing. ( a ) *Content.* The complaint and notice of hearing shall include: ( 1 ) The legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is held;
( 2 ) The matters of fact and law to be considered and determined. The complaint shall set forth the matters of fact alleged therein in such manner as will permit a specific response to each allegation. The notice shall notify the respondent of his right to a hearing and shall specify the time required by § 10.23 of these rules for the filing of an answer and the consequence of failure to file an answer.
( b ) *Service.* The Proceedings Clerk shall give appropriate notice to each respondent by serving them with a copy of the complaint and notice of hearing. Service may be made in person, by confirmed telegraphic notice, or by registered mail or certified mail, addressed to the last known business or residence address of the person to be served or the address of his duly authorized agent for service. If a respondent is not found at his last known business or residence address and no forwarding address is available, additional service may be made, at the discretion of the Commission, as follows: ( 1 ) By publishing a notice of the filing of the proceeding and a summary of the complaint, approved by the Commission or the Administrative Law Judge, once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers having a general circulation where the respondent's last known business or residence address was located and, if ascertainable, where the respondent is believed to reside or be doing business currently; and
( 2 ) By continuously displaying the complaint on the Commission's Internet web site during the period referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
[41 FR 2511, Jan. 16, 1976, as amended at 60 FR 54802, Oct. 26, 1995; 63 FR 55791, Oct. 19, 1998]
§ 1101.63 Information submitted pursuant to section 15(b) of the CPSA. ( a ) Section 6(b)(5) applies only to information provided to the Commission by a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer which is identified by the manufacturer, distributor or retailer, or treated by the Commission staff as being submitted pursuant to section 15(b).
( b ) Section 6(b)(5)'s limitation also applies to the portions of staff generated documents that contain, summarize or analyze such information submitted pursuant to section 15(b).
( c ) Section 6(b)(5) does not apply to information independently obtained or prepared by the Commission staff.
[Civil No. 260.

Filed January 26, 1892.]

[29 Pac. 15.]

#### HENRY A. SMITH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B. BLACKMORE, Defendant and Appellee.

1. Appeal and Errob^-Bill op Exceptions—What Constitutes.—A paper purporting to be an agreed statement of tbe ease, if presented to tbe trial judge, and by bim settled and signed, as required by tbe statutes, and filed within the time allowed, can be considered a bill of exceptions, under authority of *Putnam v. Putnam, ante,*p. 182, 24 Pae. 320.

2. Same—Agreed Statement—Signing—Bev. Stats. Ariz. 1887, Par; 874, Cited.—Tbe agreed statement of tbe case, permitted by stat*349ute, *supra,*must be signed and allowed by the trial judge, or it will be stricken from the record.

3. Same—Becord—Absence of 'Bill of Exceptions and Statement of Eacts-—Scope of Beview—Judgment-Boll.—Where there is no bill of exceptions, statement of facts or motion for new trial in the record, there is nothing to review except the judgment-roll, and, when there is no error therein, the judgment will be affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise. "William H.' Barnes, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Ben Goodrich, for Appellant.

George G. Berry, for Appellee.

SLOAN, J.

The record in this case is defective. No bill of exceptions, statement of facts, or motion for new trial appears therein. There was signed by the attorneys of record, and filed among the papers copied into the transcript, a paper purporting to be an agreed statement of the case and facts proven at the trial, permitted under paragraph 874 of the Revised Statutes. This paper was probably meant to take the place of both a bill of exceptions and a statement of facts. It embodied some of the characteristics of a bill of exceptions; and, under the authority of *Putnam*v. *Putnam, ante,*p. 182, 24 Pac. Rep. 320, had it been presented to the trial judge and by him settled and signed, as required by the statutes, as well as filed within the time allowed, it could have been considered as such. It fell short of a proper bill of exceptions in each of these particulars. Nor can it be considered as a proper agreed statement of the case permitted under said paragraph 874, inasmuch as it was not allowed nor signed by the trial judge, as provided therein. No agreement of counsel can take away the right, nor make it any less the duty, of the judge, under the statute, to approve and sign the statement before it becomes a part of the record. It is entitled to become a part of the record only by virtue of the allowance and signature of the judge, and, if these are wanting in any agreed statement attempted to be made and filed under said paragraph, it must be rejected as improperly in the record. *350There is nothing, therefore, in the record to review except the jndgment-roll, and, as no error appears therein, the judgment must he affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Gooding, C. J., and Kibbey, J., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3520 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the retired pay 

benefits promised a person when they join the Armed Forces are not reduced. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2011 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the 

retired pay benefits promised a person when they join 

the Armed Forces are not reduced. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Our Promises 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF RETIRED PAY BENEFITS FOR CUR7 RENT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

8 Section 1411 of title 10, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following new sub10 section: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3520 IH

1 ‘‘(c) NO REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY BENEFITS

2 FOR CURRENT MEMBERS.—Notwithstanding the effective 

3 date or specified applicability of any change regarding the 

4 entitlement of members or former members of the armed 

5 forces to retired or retainer pay under this title or to the 

6 computation of such retired or retainer pay under the for7 mulas of the table in section 1401(a) of this title or of 

8 any other provision of law, the change shall not apply to 

9 a member or former member who first became a member 

10 of the armed forces before the effective date of the change 

11 unless— 

12 ‘‘(1) the member or former member affirma13 tively accepts the change; or 

14 ‘‘(2) the change would have the effect of ex15 panding the entitlement or eligibility of the member 

16 or former member to retired or retainer pay or in17 creasing the amount of such retired or retainer 

18 pay.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Joseph Bender, Respondent-Appellant, *v.*Morris Seidenberg, Appellant-Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In view of defendant’s admission, the trial court erred in refusing to find that at the start of the joint venture defendant received from plaintiff $1,500.

It appears too that the findings of fact contained in the court’s decision are incomplete in that they fail to disclose how it was concluded that there was due and owing to plaintiff from defendant the sum of $833.67.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 which is an itemized financial statement of the joint venture furnished by defendant on his examination before trial was properly used by the trial court as a basis for calculating the account between the parties. That statement showed a net profit from the business of $1,161.51. Adding that sum to the two items of disbursement amounting to $3,666.67 which were disallowed as improper together with the $2,000 account receivable omitted from plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, the total profit from the business amounted to $6,828.18 of which plaintiff’s share is $3,414.09.

As stated above, plaintiff is entitled to credit for the $1,500 which he paid to defendant at the start of the enterprise. He is also entitled to a credit of $919.30, the amount of a check delivered by him to defendant on January 5, 1949. Adding these two items to plaintiff’s share of the profits, results in total credits to plaintiff of $5,833.39.

Defendant paid plaintiff $1,500 on December 21, 1948, and gave him a like sum the following day. There was also paid to plaintiff by defendant $1,000 on May 17, 1949. These three items which must be charged against plaintiff total $4,000.

Deducting the debits from the credits, shown above, there is due from defendant to plaintiff the sum of $1,833.39 for which plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

*642The judgment should be unanimously modified in accordance with this opinion and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Settle order containing new findings and reversing findings o£ trial court inconsistent herewith.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. Settle order containing new findings and reversing findings of the trial court inconsistent herewith. Settle order on notice.