alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Alexander V. Lagerborg, certify that:

1. I have reviewed the report being filed on Form 10-QSB by ACROSS AMERICA REAL
ESTATE CORP.;

2. Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of ACROSS AMERICA REAL
ESTATE CORP. as of, and for, the periods presented in the report;

4. I and the other certifying officer are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in
Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for ACROSS AMERICA
REAL ESTATE CORP and have:

     i. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared;

     ii. Evaluated the effectiveness of ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.'s
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and

     iii. Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. I and the other certifying officer have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP. auditors and the audit
committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

     i. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.'s ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified
ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.'s auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and

     ii. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and

6. I and the other certifying officer have indicated in the report whether or
not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 14, 2005

                                 /s/ Alexander V. Lagerborg
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Alexander V. Lagerborg, Chief Executive Officer
#### Reynolds Metals Company, Respondent, v. Cairns Corporation et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1027.]
### §16391a. Technology transfer reports and evaluation

#### (a) Annual report

As part of the updated technology transfer execution plan required each year under section 16391(h)(2) of this title, the Secretary of Energy (in this section referred to as the "Secretary") shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the progress and implementation of programs established under sections 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, and 9005 of this Act and under sections 10714, 10718, 10719, 10720, and 10723 of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act.

#### (b) Evaluation

Not later than 3 years after December 27, 2020, and every 3 years thereafter the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate an evaluation on the extent to which programs established under sections 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, and 9005 of this Act and sections 10713, 10714, 10715, and 10717 of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act are achieving success based on relevant short-term and long-term metrics.

(Pub. L. 116–260, div. Z, title IX, §9007, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2600; Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title VI, §10727, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1710.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, and 9005 of this Act, referred to in text, are sections 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, and 9005 of div. Z of Pub. L. 116–260, known as the Energy Act of 2020. Sections 9001 and 9003 of the Act amended section 16391 of this title. Section 9002 of the Act enacted provisions set out as a note under section 16391 of this title. Section 9004 of the Act amended section 16396 of this title. Section 9005 of the Act enacted section 7256c of this title.

The Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act, referred to in text, is div. B of Pub. L. 117–167, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1405. Sections 10713, 10714, 10715, 10717, 10719, and 10720 of the Act are classified to sections 19301 to 19303 and 19311 to 19313 of this title, respectively. Section 10718 of the Act amended section 16393 of this title. Section 10723 of the Act amended sections 16391 and 18861 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Act of 2020, and not as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–167 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section consisted of subsecs. (a) to (c) relating to an annual report, evaluation, and report on technology transfer gaps, respectively.
#### Count Jean Krasicki, Respondent, v. Universal Tool Steel Company, Ltd., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment of costs. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Smith and Page, JJ.
#### FORTIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 05-2518-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: March 22, 2006.

Decided: April 27, 2006.

*191Henry D. Levine, Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP, Washington DC (Stephen J. Rosen, Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP, Washington DC, on the brief; Bradley S. Waterman, Washington DC, of counsel; Richard C. Yeskoo, Yes-koo, Hogan *&*Tamlyn LLP, New York, NY, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney (David S. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel; Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable David G. Trager, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The United States of America appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (John G. Koeltl, Judge), granting summary judgment to plaintiff Fortis, Inc. (“Fortis”) on Fortis’s claim for a refund of excise taxes. At issue is whether the federal excise tax statute, 26 U.S.C. § 4251, *et seq.,*applies to the telephone services used by Fortis during that time, and in particular, whether the provision of that statute that defines taxable toll telephone service as a “telephonic quality communication for which (a) there is a toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time of each individual communication and (b) the charge is paid within the United States,” 26 U.S.C. § 4252(b), applies to services for which the toll charge varies in amount only with the transmission time of each call, and not with the distance the call travels. In two thorough and well-reasoned opinions, Judge Koeltl granted summary judgment in favor of Fortis on the liability of the Government for Fortis’s claim to a refund, and denied the Government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. *See Fortis v. United States,*420 F.Supp.2d 166 (S.D.N.Y.2004); 420 F.Supp.2d 185 (S.D.N.Y.2005).

Subsequent to the District Court’s decisions, the Sixth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits have considered this issue and have, for substantially the same reasons as those stated by the District Court, reached the conclusion that telephone services such as Fortis’s are not taxable under 26 U.S.C. §§ 4251 and 4252. *See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. United States,*431 F.3d 374 (D.C.Cir.2005); *OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States,*428 F.3d 583 (6th Cir.2005); *American Bankers Ins. Group, Inc. v. United States,*408 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir.2005). We now do likewise.

We affirm on the opinions of Judge Koeltl.
§ 1101.52 Procedure for retraction. ( a ) *Initiative.* The Commission may retract information under section 6(b)(7) on the initiative of the Commission, upon the request of a manufacturer, private labeler, distributor, or retailer of a consumer product, or upon the request of any other person in accordance with the procedures provided in this section.
( b ) *Request for retraction.* Any manufacturer, private labeler, distributor or retailer of a consumer product or any other person may request a retraction if he/she believes the Commission or an individual member, employee, agent, contractor or representative of the Commission has made public disclosure of inaccurate or misleading information, which reflects adversely either on the safety of a product with which the firm deals or on the practices of the firm. The request must be in writing and addressed to the Secretary, CPSC. Washington, D.C. 20207.
( c ) *Content of request.* A request for retraction must include the following information to the extent it is reasonably available: ( 1 ) The information disclosed for which retraction is requested, the date on which the information was disclosed, the manner in which it was disclosed, who disclosed it, the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, news release) and any other relevant information the firm has to assist the Commission in identifying the information. A photocopy of the disclosure should accompany the request.
( 2 ) A statement of the specific aspects of the information the firm believes are inaccurate or misleading and reflect adversely either on the safety of a consumer product with which the firm deals or on the firm's practices.
( 3 ) A statement of the reasons the firm believes the information is inaccurate or misleading and reflects adversely either on the safety of a consumer product with which the firm deals or on the firm's practices.
( 4 ) A statement of the action the firm requests the Commission to take in publishing a retraction in a manner equivalent to that in which disclosure was made.
( 5 ) Any additional data or information the firm believes is relevant.
( d ) *Commission action on request.* The Commission will act expeditiously on any request for retraction within 30 working days unless the Commission determines, for good cause, that a longer time period is appropriate. If the Commission finds that the Commission or any individual member, employee, agent contractor or representative of the Commission has made public disclosure of inaccurate or misleading information that reflects adversely either on the safety of the firm's product or the practices of the firm, the Commission will publish a retraction of information in a manner equivalent to that in which the disclosure was made. If the Commission finds that fuller disclosure is necessary, it will publish a retraction in the manner it determines appropriate under the circumstances.
( e ) *Notification to requester.* The Commission will promptly notify the requester in writing of its decision on request for retraction. Notification shall set forth the reasons for the Commission's decision.
### §2005b. Conditions of assistance

As a condition to providing assistance under section 2005 of this title, the Surgeon General shall—

(a) require plans and specifications meeting such standards of construction and equipment as he may prescribe, and

(b) obtain such assurances and agreements as in his judgment are equitable in the light of the financial assistance provided under this subchapter and are necessary to assure the availability of the facility for the provision of hospital and medical care to Indians and to assure that the hospital is operated in compliance with State standards for operation and maintenance of hospitals which receive Federal aid under title VI of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 291 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 85–151, §3, Aug. 16, 1957, 71 Stat. 371.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Public Health Service Act, referred to in par. (b), is act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, 58 Stat. 682. Title VI of the Act is classified generally to subchapter IV (§291 et seq.) of chapter 6A of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 201 of this title and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Office of Surgeon General abolished by section 3 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, eff. June 25, 1966, 31 F.R. 8855, 80 Stat. 1610, and functions thereof transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 1 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, set out as a note under section 202 of this title. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare redesignated Secretary of Health and Human Services by section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education. Office of Surgeon General reestablished within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, see Notice of Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Mar. 30, 1987, 52 F.R. 11754.
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.

§ 240.19c-5 Governing the multiple listing of options on national securities exchanges. ( a ) The rules of each national securities exchange that provides a trading market in standardized put or call options shall provide as follows: ( 1 ) On and after January 22, 1990, but not before, no rule, stated policy, practice, or interpretation of this exchange shall prohibit or condition, or be construed to prohibit or condition or otherwise limit, directly or indirectly, the ability of this exchange to list any stock options class first listed on an exchange on or after January 22, 1990, because that options class is listed on another options exchange.
( 2 ) During the period from January 22, 1990, to January 21, 1991, but not before, no rule, stated policy, practice, or interpretation of this exchange shall prohibit or condition, or be construed to prohibit or condition or otherwise limit, directly or indirectly, the ability of this exchange to list up to ten classes of standardized stock options overlying exchange-listed stocks that were listed on another options exchange before January 22, 1990. These ten classes shall be in addition to any option on an exchange-listed stock trading on this exchange that was traded on more than one options exchange before January 22, 1990.
( 3 ) On and after January 21, 1991, but not before, no rule, stated policy, practice, or interpretation of this exchange shall prohibit or condition, or be construed to prohibit or condition or otherwise limit, directly or indirectly, the ability of this exchange to list any stock options class because that options class is listed on another options exchange.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this Rule, if any options class is delisted from an options exchange as a result of a merger of the equity security underlying the option or a failure of the underlying security to satisfy that exchange's options listing standards, then the exchange is permitted to select a replacement option from among those standardized options overlying exchange-listed stocks that were listed on another options exchange before January 22, 1990.
( c ) For purposes of this Rule, the term *exchange* shall mean a national securities exchange, registered as such with the Commission pursuant to Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
( d ) For purposes of this Rule, the term *standardized option* shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
( e ) For purposes of this Rule, the term *options class* shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
[54 FR 23976, June 5, 1989]
exv4w2



 






Exhibit 4.2









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the Registration
Statement on Form F-8 (File No. 333-129218) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, as amended on December 15, 2005 and on or about January 19, 2006, and to the incorporation by reference therein
of our report dated February 14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the
financial statement schedule of Inco Limited as at December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 and management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2004 which appears on page 134 of Inco
Limited’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.




/s/   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




Chartered Accountants



Toronto, Ontario

January 19, 2006



PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other
member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and
independent legal entity.
#### Rudolph Schraud, Appellant, v. Poirier & McLane Corp., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

<PAGE>

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Kelly Kendall, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this amended  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Life USA,
Inc.;

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

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

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this amended
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this amended  quarterly  report our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  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  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
amended  quarterly  report  whether there were  significant  changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 11, 2004


/s/ Kelly Kendall
------------------------
 Kelly Kendall, CEO & CFO
### §1715. Finality of Secretary's decisions

The action of the Secretary in allowing or denying any payment under subchapter I shall be final and conclusive on all questions of law and fact and not subject to review by any other official of the United States or by any court by mandamus or otherwise, and the Comptroller General is authorized and directed to allow credit in the accounts of any certifying or disbursing officer for payments in accordance with such action.

(Dec. 2, 1942, ch. 668, title II, §205, 56 Stat. 1034.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions to Secretary of Labor, see note set out under section 1711 of this title.
§ 23.608 Restrictions on counterparty clearing relationships. No swap dealer or major swap participant entering into a swap to be submitted for clearing with a counterparty that is a customer of a futures commission merchant shall enter into an arrangement that: ( a ) Discloses to the futures commission merchant or any swap dealer or major swap participant the identity of a customer's original executing counterparty;
( b ) Limits the number of counterparties with whom a customer may enter into a trade;
( c ) Restricts the size of the position a customer may take with any individual counterparty, apart from an overall limit for all positions held by the customer with the swap dealer or major swap participant;
( d ) Impairs a customer's access to execution of a trade on terms that have a reasonable relationship to the best terms available; or
( e ) Prevents compliance with the timeframes set forth in § 1.74(b), § 23.610(b), or § 39.12(b)(7) of this chapter.
[77 FR 21308, Apr. 9, 2012]