alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Ann L. Schmitt, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Across America Real EstateCorp.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure the material information relating to the smallbusiness issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation;  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;and5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer (s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’sability to record, process summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.       Date: MAY 14, 2007 By: /s/ Ann L. Schmitt             Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL MURO CERVANTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72749

Agency No. A035-878-554

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Muro Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

NOV 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
questions of law. Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013). We

deny the petition for review. 

Contrary to Muro Cervantes’ contention, the BIA sufficiently addressed his

claim that his IJ proceedings were fundamentally unfair, where the BIA stated that

it reviewed the arguments advanced on appeal and concluded that the IJ did not err

in determining that Muro Cervantes failed to demonstrate that he warrants relief as

a matter of discretion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and

announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive

that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks

omitted)).

In addition, Muro Cervantes has not established that his proceedings before

the IJ were fundamentally unfair or tainted by bias. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b)

(“[i]n deciding the individual cases before them, . . . immigration judges shall

exercise their independent judgment and discretion”); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d

1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 11-72749
AIR-15-044-E

November 18, 2014

 Exemption No. 8496C

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-18662

Mr. Kevin Boissonneault

Program Manager

Department of Homeland Security

Customs and Border Protection

Air and Marine Operations

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20229

Dear Mr. Boissonneault:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8496. 

It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 1, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Air and 

Marine Operations (DHS) for an extension of Exemption No. 8496, as amended. That 

exemption from §§ 45.25, 45.27(a), 45.29(a), (b), (f), and (h) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows DHS to use smaller aircraft registration markings than required 

by the regulations, to accommodate the DHS livery.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to DHS.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8496

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C.§§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I grant Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border 

Protection, Air and Marine Operations this exemption to allow Department of Homeland 

Security, Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations (DHS) to use smaller 

aircraft registration markings than required by the regulations, to accommodate the DHS 

livery.

The Effect of Our Decision

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frank P. Paskiewicz

Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.14a-103 Notice of Exempt Solicitation. Information to be included in statements submitted by or on behalf of a person pursuant to § 240.14a-6(g).

### U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, DC 20549

### Notice of Exempt Solicitation

1. Name of the Registrant:

2. Name of person relying on exemption:

3. Address of person relying on exemption:

4. Written materials. Attach written material required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-6(g)(1) [§ 240.14a-6(g)(1)].

[57 FR 48294, Oct. 22, 1992, as amended at 89 FR 14323, Feb. 26, 2024]
Exhibit 31.4



Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



I, Keith Stauffer, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2021 of TerrAscend Corp.;                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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: March 24, 2022 |                              
|-------------------- | -----------------------------
|                     | /s/ Keith Stauffer           
|                     | Keith Stauffer               
|                     | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     | (Principal Financial Officer)
§ 314.3 Standards for safeguarding customer information. ( a ) *Information security program.* You shall develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program that is written in one or more readily accessible parts and contains administrative, technical, and physical safeguards that are appropriate to your size and complexity, the nature and scope of your activities, and the sensitivity of any customer information at issue. The information security program shall include the elements set forth in § 314.4 and shall be reasonably designed to achieve the objectives of this part, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Objectives.* The objectives of section 501(b) of the Act, and of this part, are to: ( 1 ) Insure the security and confidentiality of customer information;
( 2 ) Protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such information; and
( 3 ) Protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.
[67 FR 36493, May 23, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 70307, Dec. 9, 2021]
### §12723. Coordinated Federal support for housing strategies

The Secretary shall make assistance under this subchapter available to participating jurisdictions, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-FHA Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to the maximum extent practicable, in coordination with mortgage insurance, rental assistance, and other housing assistance appropriate to the efficient and timely completion of activities under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §204, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4096.)
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.17Ab2-2 Determinations affecting covered clearing agencies. ( a ) The Commission may, if it deems appropriate, upon application by any clearing agency or member of a clearing agency, or on its own initiative, determine whether a covered clearing agency is systemically important in multiple jurisdictions. In determining whether a covered clearing agency is systemically important in multiple jurisdictions, the Commission may consider: ( 1 ) Whether the covered clearing agency is a designated clearing agency; and
( 2 ) Whether the clearing agency has been determined to be systemically important by one or more jurisdictions other than the United States through a process that includes consideration of whether the foreseeable effects of a failure or disruption of the designated clearing agency could threaten the stability of each relevant jurisdiction's financial system.
( b ) The Commission may, if it deems appropriate, determine whether any of the activities of a clearing agency providing central counterparty services, in addition to clearing agencies registered with the Commission for the purpose of clearing security-based swaps, have a more complex risk profile. In determining whether a clearing agency's activity has a more complex risk profile, the Commission may consider whether the clearing agency clears financial instruments that are characterized by discrete jump-to-default price changes or that are highly correlated with potential participant defaults.
( c ) The Commission may, if it deems appropriate, upon application by any clearing agency or member of a clearing agency, or on its own initiative, determine whether to rescind any determination made pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. In determining whether to rescind any such determination, the Commission may consider a change in circumstances such that the covered clearing agency no longer meets the criteria supporting the determination in effect.
( d ) The Commission shall publish notice of its intention to consider making a determination under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, together with a brief statement of the grounds under consideration therefor, and provide at least a 30-day public comment period prior to any such determination, giving all interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning such proposed determination. The Commission may provide the clearing agency subject to the proposed determination opportunity for hearing regarding the proposed determination.
( e ) Notice of determinations under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall be given by prompt publication thereof, together with a statement of written reasons therefor.
( f ) For purposes of this rule, the terms *covered clearing agency, designated clearing agency,* and *systemically important in multiple jurisdictions* shall have the meanings set forth in § 240.17Ad-22(a).
[81 FR 70901, Oct. 13, 2016]
### Subtitle 44 BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS**10.44.29 Nominations and Balloting for Ap**

**pointments to Board of Dental Examiners**
Authority: Health Occupations Article, §4-202, Annotated Code of Maryland Notice of Extension of Emergency Status [08-379-E-1] The Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review has granted an extension of emergency status to new Regulations .01 — .19 under a new chapter,COMAR 10.44.29 Nominations and Balloting for Appointments to Board of Dental Examiners

.

Emergency status has been extended to: July 1, 2009.

Emergency action was published in: 36:4 Md. R. 345 (February 13, 2009). JOHN M. COLMERS Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene 

# Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

**Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 26.11.27 Emission Limitations for Power**  **Plants**

Authority: Environmental Article, §§1-101, 1-404, 2-101 — 2-103, 2-301 — 2-303, 2-1003, 10-102, and 10-103, Annotated Code of Maryland Notice of Emergency Action [09-132-E] The Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, andLegislative Review has granted emergency status to amendments to Regulations .02 and .03 under COMAR 26.11.27 Emission Limitations for Power Plants

.

Emergency status began: April 11, 2009. Emergency status expires: September 17, 2009.

Editor’s Note: The text of this document will not be printed here because it appeared as a Notice of Proposed Action in 36:9 Md. R. 677 — 679 (April 24, 2009), referenced as [09-132-P].
SHARI T. WILSON Secretary of the Environment **EMERGENCY ACTION ON REGULATIONS 715**

**MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 36, ISSUE 10 FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009**
§ 232.10 Application of part 232. ( a ) This part, in conjunction with the EDGAR Filer Manual and the electronic filing provisions of applicable rules, regulations and forms, shall govern the electronic submission of documents filed or otherwise submitted to the Commission and shall be controlling for an electronic format document in the manner and respects provided in this part.
( b ) Each registrant, third party filer, or agent must, before filing on EDGAR: ( 1 ) File electronically the information required by Form ID (§§ 239.63, 249.446, 269.7 and 274.402 of this chapter), the uniform application form for access codes to file on EDGAR, and
( 2 ) File, by uploading as a Portable Document Format (PDF) attachment to the Form ID filing, a notarized document, signed by the applicant, that includes the information required to be included in the Form ID filing and confirms the authenticity of the Form ID filing.
( c ) The requirements of § 232.302 (Rule 302) do not apply to the notarized document required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
Note to § 232.10 :
The Commission strongly urges any person or entity about to become subject to the disclosure and filing requirements of the federal securities laws to submit a Form ID well in advance of the first required filing, including a registration statement relating to an initial public offering, in order to facilitate electronic filing on a timely basis.
[58 FR 14670, Mar. 18, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 36456, July 8, 1997; 64 FR 27894, May 21, 1999; 69 FR 22709, Apr. 26, 2004; 74 FR 10838, Mar. 13, 2009; 77 FR 54807, Sept. 6, 2012; 85 FR 17751, Mar. 31, 2020; 86 FR 7972, Feb. 3, 2021; 86 FR 25805, May 11, 2021]
EXHIBIT
10.35





LC
NOTE




$1,150,000
            Houston,
    Texas
            April 14,
    2010






FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, DEEP DOWN, INC., a Nevada corporation (“Borrower”),
hereby promises to pay to the order of WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK, a national banking
association (“Lender”),
on or before the LC Termination Date, the principal amount of $1,150,000 or so
much thereof as may then be outstanding under this note, together with interest,
as described below.




This note
has been executed and delivered under, and is subject to the terms of, the
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of November 11, 2008 and amended
and restated through April 14, 2010 (as amended, supplemented or restated,
the “Credit
Agreement”), between Borrower and Lender, and is the “LC Note” referred to in the
Credit Agreement.  Unless defined in this note, or the context
requires otherwise, capitalized terms used in this note have the meanings given
to such terms in the Credit Agreement.  Reference is made to the
Credit Agreement for provisions affecting this note regarding applicable
interest rates, principal and interest payment dates, final maturity, voluntary
and mandatory prepayments, acceleration of maturity, exercise of rights, payment
of attorneys’ fees, court costs and other costs of collection, certain waivers
by Borrower and others now or hereafter obligated for payment of any sums due
under this note, and security for the payment of this note.  This note
is a Loan Document and, therefore, is subject to the applicable provisions of
Section
13 of the Credit Agreement, all of which applicable provisions are
incorporated into this note by reference as if set forth in this note
verbatim.




Specific
reference is made to Section
3.7 of the Credit Agreement for usury savings provisions.




This note
is issued to refinance a portion of the revolving credit facility under the
Existing Credit Agreement (as defined in the Credit Agreement).




the
rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be determined solely from
written agreements, documents, and instruments, and any prior oral agreements
between the parties are superseded by and merged into such
writings.  this note, the credit agreement and the other written loan
documents executed by the borrower and the lender (or by the borrower for the
benefit of the lender) represent the final agreement between the borrower and
the lender and may not be contradicted by evidence of prior, contemporaneous, or
subsequent oral agreements by the parties.  there are no unwritten
oral agreements between the parties.




This note
must be construed — and its performance enforced — under Texas law.








[Signature appears on the following
page.]









EXECUTED
as of the date first written above.




BORROWER:
                    
                    DEEP
      DOWN, INC.,
                    a
      Nevada corporationBy:
                /s/ Eugene
      L. ButlerEugene
      L. ButlerChief
      Financial Officer




Signature
Page to LC Note


2
*

The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District

of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0615n.06

Filed: August 22, 2006

No. 05-4042

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

KENTUCKY HOUSEHOLD GOODS

CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN

ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION

Before: DAUGHTREY and COOK, Circuit Judges; and COLLIER, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Kentucky Household Goods Carrier Association petitions this court for

review of a Federal Trade Commission order affirming an administrative law judge’s decision that

the Association’s ratemaking activities constituted unlawful horizontal price fixing, unexempted

from antitrust scrutiny by the “state-action” doctrine. We agree with the Commission and adopt as

the panel’s opinion, the reasoning, findings of fact, and legal conclusions of the ALJ’s decision, as

reviewed and explained in the Commission’s order, and briefly discuss the arguments posed by this

appeal.
No. 05-4042

Kentucky Household v. FTC

- 2 -

 In view of the scant evidence demonstrating that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the

state agency authorized to fix or approve the rates charged by the Association’s members, actively

supervised the Association, we cannot say the Commission erred in finding the state-action doctrine

inapplicable here. Among other things, the Cabinet held no hearings regarding the Association’s

proposed rate increases, provided no notice of impending rate changes, and published no written

decision explaining its reasons for implementing rate changes. This inaction demonstrates that the

state did not exercise “sufficient independent judgment and control so that the details of the rates

or prices [were] established as a product of deliberate state intervention.” FTC v. Ticor Title Ins.

Co., 504 U.S. 621, 634 (1992). The spurious distinctions the Association draws between its case

and the authorities relied upon below, namely Ticor, 504 U.S. 621 and Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers

Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980), do not convince us otherwise.

Moreover, the Cabinet did not participate in the trial before the ALJ (except to make a

closing argument) or seriously pursue intervention on appeal. And the state attorney general, in its

amicus curiae brief filed in support of the Commission, asserted: “[T]he FTC’s Decision and Order

is consistent with and fully supported by Kentucky law.” Such lackluster support for the claimed

ratemaking role played by the state (the intended beneficiary of the state-action exemption) further

supportstheCommission’s conclusion that the exemption isinapplicable here. Cf. Midcal, 445 U.S.

at 112 n.12 (commenting the State of California “has shown less than an enthusiastic interest in its

wine pricing system” in finding that the state-action exemption did not apply). 
No. 05-4042

Kentucky Household v. FTC

- 3 -

We deny the petition for review.