alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Kenneth Constable, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 of RedEnvelope, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b. [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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; andd. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. 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 the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: February 12, 2007*By: /s/ KENNETH CONSTABLE*     *Kenneth Constable*
#### § 224.43 Collection of civil penalties and assessments.

Sections 3806 and 3808(b) of title 31, United States Code, authorize actions for collection of civil penalties and assessments imposed under this part and specify the procedures for such actions.
### §285l. Purpose of Institute

The general purpose of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (in this subpart referred to as the "Institute") is the conduct and support of research, training, health information dissemination, and other programs with respect to factors in the environment that affect human health, directly or indirectly.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §463, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 857; amended Pub. L. 103–43, title XIII, §1301(b), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 170.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–43 inserted "(in this subpart referred to as the 'Institute')" after "Sciences".
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ronald Stern, by Steve Sandler, Respondent, v New York State Board of Parole et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Ronald Stern, Respondent-Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Appellant-Respondent.

Appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 17, 1976, as directed the Board of Parole and the Warden of the Green Haven Correctional Facility to provide petitioner’s counsel with access to petitioner’s parole file prior to a final revocation hearing, with certain limitations, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated December 7, 1976, which determined that the petitioner’s due process rights had been violated by the failure to afford him access to his parole file, declared the declaration of delinquency, set at November 15, 1975, to be null and void, restored petitioner’s maximum expiration date to November 26, *5621976, ordered petitioner’s discharge from the supervision of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and Board of Parole and denied petitioner’s application for a contempt citation and damages. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our view petitioner should have been afforded access to those portions of his parole file requested, prior to his final revocation hearing. The Board of Parole and Department of Correctional Services have not demonstrated any "overriding reason to maintain their confidentiality” (see *State ex rel. Pizarro v New York State Bd. of Parole,*55 AD2d 631, 632). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for a contempt citation and damages. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
#### § 274.401 [Reserved]
#### § 1510.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1510.150, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/11

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS’ 2-11-10 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [DKT. NO. 388]

MASTER FILE NO.: C-08-01510-WHA

sf-2805735

DARRYL P. RAINS (CA SBN 104802) 

EUGENE ILLOVSKY (CA SBN 117892)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

755 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304-1018

Telephone: 650.813.5600

Facsimile: 650.494.0792

Email: DRains@mofo.com 

CRAIG D. MARTIN (CA SBN 168195)

DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (CA SBN 184266)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

Attorneys for defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation, 

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment 

Management, Inc., Schwab Investments, Charles R. Schwab, 

Evelyn Dilsaver, Randall W. Merk, George Pereira, Matthew 

Hastings, Mariann Byerwalter, Donald F. Dorward, William A. 

Hasler, Robert G. Holmes, Gerald B. Smith, Donald R. 

Stephens, and Michael W. Wilsey 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE CHARLES SCHWAB CORP. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. C-08-01510-WHA

CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING, IN 

PART, PLAINTIFFS’ FEBRUARY 11 

2010, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL [DKT. NO. 388]

 Trial date: May 10, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 415 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS’ 2-11-10 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [DKT. NO. 388]

MASTER FILE NO. C-01510-WHA 1

sf-2805735

On February 11, 2010, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal certain materials 

which defendants had designated “Confidential.” (See Dkt. No. 388.) Plaintiffs moved to seal 

exhibits E–I and K–S to the Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment re: Negative Causation (Dkt. No. 385) and the redacted portions of plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment re: Negative Causation (Dkt. No. 384) which quoted exhibits E–I 

and K–S. 

Defendants have filed a declaration in support of maintaining the confidentiality of 

Exhibits E–I, K–N, and R–S of the Berman declaration, as well as the portions of plaintiffs’ 

motion that quote from these exhibits. To the extent Exhibits O–Q were designated as 

confidential, defendants have withdrawn that designation.

 Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to file Exhibits O–Q in the public record. Exhibits E–I, 

K–N, and R–S of the Berman declaration, as well as the redacted portions of the Motion referring 

to these exhibits, shall remain under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________, 2010

 HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

February 19

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 415 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Capital  Beverage  Corporation  (the
Company") on Form  10-QSB/A  for the period  ending March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Carol  Russell,  Treasurer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.

/s/Carol Russell

Carol Russell
Treasurer
August 13, 2002
### §295b. Public health traineeships

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make grants to accredited schools of public health, and to other public or nonprofit private institutions accredited for the provision of graduate or specialized training in public health, for the purpose of assisting such schools and institutions in providing traineeships to individuals described in subsection (b)(3).

#### (b) Certain requirements

#### (1) Amount

The amount of any grant under this section shall be determined by the Secretary.

#### (2) Use of grant

Traineeships awarded under grants made under subsection (a) shall provide for tuition and fees and such stipends and allowances (including travel and subsistence expenses and dependency allowances) for the trainees as the Secretary may deem necessary.

#### (3) Eligible individuals

The individuals referred to in subsection (a) are individuals who are pursuing a course of study in a health professions field in which there is a severe shortage of health professionals (which fields include the fields of epidemiology, environmental health, biostatistics, toxicology, nutrition, and maternal and child health).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §767, as added Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §105, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3555.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 295b, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §763, as added Dec. 25, 1970, Pub. L. 91–696, §101, 84 Stat. 2080–2, authorized Secretary to make grants and to set limitations and conditions on grants, required applications for grants, limited use of grant funds, set forth method of payment of grants, and provided for protection of financial interests of the United States, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–129, title II, §220(c), Oct. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 544.

Another prior section 295b, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §763, as added Oct. 31, 1963, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §101, 77 Stat. 283, related to amount of grants for construction of mental retardation facilities, including maximum payments, advances or reimbursement, installments, conditions, and nonduplication of grants, prior to the general amendment of former part D of this subchapter by section 101 of Pub. L. 91–696.

A prior section 767 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 295e–1 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–129.

Another prior section 767 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 295d–2 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–129.
#### Anna S. Mahland et al., Appellants, v. Anna L. Bradley, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint in an action to quiet title, wherein it was alleged that the respondent executed and delivered to George H. Mahland, deceased, a deed to certain premises in which the name of the grantee was omitted and in which the deceased was authorized to insert his own or some other person’s name. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appellants failed to establish any agreement or circumstances from which it could be inferred that the respondent authorized deceased to insert his name in the deed. The principle of implied authority to fill blanks in an instrument does not apply to a deed. *(Hulburt*v. *Walker,*258 N. Y. 8; *Ghauncey*v. *Arnold,*24 N. Y. 330, 337.) There was no error in the admission of the record in the summary proceedings in which the deceased made the petition stating he was the agent of the respondent. The deceased and the respondent had consulted the attorney who testified, on a question of mutual interest. (Cf. *Wallace*v. *Wallace,*216 N. Y. 28, 35, and cases there cited.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek,- JJ.
#### Ex Parte CLEVELAND.

[application fob habeas corpus by party arrested under ca. sa.[

1. *Practice in application for habeas corpus.*— When a party who is in custody has sued out a *habeas corpus*before a circuit judge, who refuses to discharge him, he may then make application to the supreme court, to revise the action of the circuit judge; but the facts on which the action of the circuit court was based must be brought to the notice of the supreme court.

2. TFVii *of ca. sa.*— A writ of *ca. sa.*is not confined in its operation to the county of the defendant’s residence; nor is it necessary that the clerk endorse on it that the sheriff hold the defendant to bail in double the sum sworn to be due.

Application for *habeas corpus*by O. H. Cleveland, who was arrested by the sheriff of Mobile, on tbe 21st May, 1860, under a *capias ad satisfaciendum*issued by the clerk of the circuit court of Bussell; and who thereupon sued out a *habeas corpus*before Hon. O. *W.*Bapier, who refused to discharge him. In the petitioner’s application to this court it is alleged, that he was a resident citizen of Mobile county at the time of his arrest; but the transcript, which is annexed to the petition, does not show, by bill of exceptions or otherwise, that that fact was proved on the application before Judge Bapier.

Chamberlain & Hall, for the petitioner.

Ben Lane Posey, *contra.*

*307STONE, J.

The petitioner in this case went before Hon. O. *W.*Rapier, on writ of *habeas corpus,*sued out by petitioner to obtain his discharge from arrest under a *capias ad satisfaciendum.*Judg'e Rapier refused to discharge him, and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff. Mr. Cleveland now presents his, petition to this court, and asks us to revise the action of Judge Rapier. See *Ex parte*Burnett, 30 Ala. 461.

The facts which were made to appear before Judge Rapier, are not brought to our notice; and hence we are not able to say on what facts he based his decision. This, of itself, is enough to require us to withhold the writ. "We cannot say that he erred, unless we know upon what facts he pronounced judgment. If the argument be sound, that a defendant cannot be arrested on *ca. sa.*issued from a county other than that of his residence; still, we do not know that it was made to appear to Judge Rapier that Mr. Cleveland did not reside in Russell county.

"We do not think, however, that a writ of *capias ad satisfaciendum*is confined in its operation, like a bail writ, to the county of the defendant’s residence. The statute does not restrict it, — and we have no authority to interpolate such provision. Nor can it be necessary that the clerk shall endorse on the *ca. sa.*“ that the sheriff' hold the defendant to bail, in double the sum sworn to be due.” The writ of *ca. sa.*shows both the amount due, and the order to arrest the defendant. — Code, §§2175, 2422, and form.

The writ of *habeas corpus*is refused.
§ 123.11 Movements of vessels and aircraft covered by the U.S. Munitions List outside the United States. ( a ) A license issued by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is required whenever a privately-owned aircraft or vessel on the U.S. Munitions List makes a voyage outside the United States.
( b ) Exemption. An export license is not required when a vessel or aircraft referred to in paragraph (a) of this section departs from the United States and does not enter the territorial waters or airspace of a foreign country if no defense articles are carried as cargo. Such a vessel or aircraft may not enter the territorial waters or airspace of a foreign country before returning to the United States, or carry as cargo any defense article, without a temporary export license (Form DSP-73) from the Department of State. (See § 123.5.)
[58 FR 39299, July 22, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 20541, Apr. 21, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            7255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    15144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 24939
<PP&E>                                            3395
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (2231)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                       15862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26265
<SALES>                                          10212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10212
<CGS>                                             7093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (1141)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (35)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (367)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    4787
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4048
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00


</TABLE>
### §19109. Translation Accelerator

#### (a) In general

The Director shall establish Translation Accelerators to further the research, development, and commercialization of innovation in the key technology focus areas.

#### (b) Partnerships

#### (1) In general

Each Translation Accelerator shall be comprised of a partnership including 2 or more of the following entities:

(A) An institution of higher education.

(B) A for-profit company.

(C) A nonprofit organization.

(D) A Federal agency.

(E) Another entity, if that entity is determined by the Director to be vital to the success of the program.

#### (2) Institutional or organizational level

The Director shall work to ensure that such partnerships exist at the institutional or organization level, rather than solely at the principal investigator level.

#### (3) Cost share

Not less than 25 percent of the funding for an institute shall be provided by non-Federal entities.

#### (4) Number of centers and institutes established

The Director shall endeavor to establish a balance in the number of Regional Innovation Engines and Translation Accelerators.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

From within funds authorized for the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, there are authorized to carry out the activities under this section and section 19108 of this title $6,500,000,000 for fiscal years 2023 through 2027.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10389, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1584.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6689

ANGELA MARIA DOZIER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL; THE KELLERS, Chaplains @

FCCW; ROACH, Nurse @ FCCW Infirmary; DAVID M.

HINDS, Dr. @ FCCW Infirmary; A. SMITH, Ms.,

Case Manager @ FCCW; AGOGAH, Chaplain @ NCCIW;

MS. JONES, Case Manager @ FCCW; JERRY JONES,

Sheriff @ Franklin County Jail; JUDY SILLS,

Manager @ NCDOC Combined Records; POOLE, Ms. @

FCCW Mailroom; TAYLOR, Ms., Mailroom Officer @

FCCW; SGT. WOODLEY, @ FCCW; MS. PEELE, Case

Manager/Social Worker @ FCCW; PURVIS, Ms.,

Mental Health Social Worker @ FCCW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-05-171-BO-5)

Submitted: September 9, 2005 Decided: September 30, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Maria Dozier, Appellant Pro Se.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Angela Maria Dozier appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Dozier v. Franklin County Jail, No. CA05-171-BO-5 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2005). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED