alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1


                                CEO CERTIFICATION

I, R. Greg Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

         (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 21, 2005

By: /s/ R. Greg Smith
    -----------------------------
    R. Greg Smith
    Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)
§ 513.312 Notice of proposed debarment. A debarment proceeding shall be initiated by notice to the respondent advising: ( a ) That debarment is being considered;
( b ) Of the reasons for the proposed debarment in terms sufficient to put the respondent on notice of the conduct or transaction(s) upon which it is based;
( c ) Of the cause(s) relied upon under § 513.305 for proposing debarment;
( d ) Of the provisions of § 513.311 through § 513.314, and any other Broadcasting Board of Governors procedures, if applicable, governing debarment decisionmaking; and
( e ) Of the potential effect of a debarment.
§ 96.19 First-time application procedures for accreditation and approval. ( a ) Agencies or persons seeking accreditation or approval for the first time may submit an application at any time, with the required fee(s), to an accrediting entity with jurisdiction to evaluate the application.
( b ) The accrediting entity must establish and follow uniform application procedures and must make information about those procedures available to agencies and persons that are considering whether to apply for accreditation or approval. An accrediting entity must evaluate the applicant for accreditation or approval in a timely fashion.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006. Redesignated and amended at 79 FR 40634, July 14, 2014]
### §3796ii–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ii–3 was editorially reclassified as section 10474 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §5148. Nonliability of Federal Government

The Federal Government shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency or an employee of the Federal Government in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title III, §305, formerly §308, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 149; renumbered §305, Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §105(d), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4691.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 305 of Pub. L. 93–288 was classified to section 5145 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–707.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR LEE WARREN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ED FOULK, Executive Director,Napa State Hospital; et al., 

Defendants.                                                      /

No. C 08-5794 MHP (pr)

JUDGMENT

This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

against a defendant.  

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: March 16, 2010 _____________________ Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05794-MHP   Document 13   Filed 03/17/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T06:12:55-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 903.4 Participation of exclusive representative. ( a ) Upon the initiation of a case, the executive secretary shall ascertain from the Agency, the grievant/charged employee and any labor organization which has been certified as the exclusive representative of employees of the Agency, whether the relevant position occupied by the grievant/charged employee is part of the bargaining unit for which the labor organization is the exclusive representative. If a substantial dispute exists as to whether that position is part of the bargaining unit, and if the Board determines that resolution of that dispute is necessary for determining the status of the labor organization in a case, the Board shall notify the parties and the labor organization, who may request the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board to make a final determination of that dispute. If the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board determines that the grievant or charged employee is a member of a bargaining unit represented by an exclusive representative, the executive secretary shall promptly send a copy of the papers filed with the Board to the exclusive representative.
( b ) The exclusive representative has the right to intervene as a party to the case if such exclusive representative gives timely notice to the Board in writing of its decision to intervene as a party. Notice shall be considered to be timely if given prior to or at the prehearing conference, or, in a case to be decided under part 907 of this chapter, if given within 10 days of receipt of a notice from the Board of the Board's intent to close the record of proceedings.
( c ) An exclusive representative which has not intervened under paragraph (b) of this section may be permitted to intervene as a party upon written application. In ruling upon the application, the Board shall consider whether granting the application will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and may place conditions on the exclusive representative's participation to avoid such delay or prejudice.
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

Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq. (State Bar No. 162965) 

THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK R. KITCHIN 

565 Commercial Street, 4th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 677-9058 

Facsimile: (415) 627-9076 

Counsel to Plaintiff Raquel Rodriguez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAQUEL RODRIGUEZ, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

 MICHAEL SIM, doing business as EDEN 

VILA, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C-08-03982-JL 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND 

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE 

Complaint Filed: Aug. 20, 2008

 To All Parties and the Honorable United States District Court: 

 Plaintiff Raquel Rodriguez and Defendant Michael Sim have entered into a settlement 

of all claims asserted in the above-entitled action. 

 Based on that settlement, Plaintiff Raquel Rodriguez hereby requests that the Court 

enter an order dismissing her complaint and all causes of action therein, with prejudice, at this 

time. 

DATED: April 5, 2010 THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK R. KITCHIN 

 /s/ Patrick R Kitchin 

By: ___________________________ 

 Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq. 

Attorneys Plaintiff Raquel Rodriguez

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL 

Rodriguez v. Michael Sim

1

Case 3:08-cv-03982-JL Document 50 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1 Case3:08-cv-03982-JL Document49 Filed04/05/10 Page1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRANSCEND THERAPEUTICS, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,539,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,718,233
<PP&E>                                         133,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,152,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,036,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,140
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,058,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,152,360
<SALES>                                      5,000,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,000,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,178,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                179,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            179,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   179,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
### §1781. Preschool programs

The Secretary may extend the benefits of all school feeding programs conducted and supervised by the Department of Agriculture to include preschool programs operated as part of the school system.

(Pub. L. 89–642, §12, Oct 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 889.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                            30,345
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                    359,250
<ALLOWANCES>                     (40,000)
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 411,924
<PP&E>                           426,198
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   906,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          5,176,221
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                       15,500
<COMMON>                          38,102
<OTHER-SE>                    (4,420,068)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     906,268
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 268,486
<CGS>                           (202,799)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   (472,654)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  25,066
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               (29,754)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (241,102)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                    (241,102)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.06)


</TABLE>
#### Cecil Rossi, Appellant, v. William Paul Buchler, Respondent.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate denied; the date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
#### § 228.23 Other delivery services.

No source or nationality rules apply to other delivery services, such as export packing, loading, commodity inspection services, and services of a freight forwarder. Such services are eligible when provided as part of a commodity procurement financed by USAID.
### §3796jj–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796jj–4 was editorially reclassified as section 10495 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §3796bb–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796bb–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10352 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  L OWELL W. R OGERS ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. A MERICAN E LECTRIC P OWERS ERVICE No. 01-2480



#  C ORPORATION , a New York corporation; K EMPERI NSURANCE C OMPANIES , Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.

(CA-01-101-3) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: July 16, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Patrick L. Cottrell, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John J.Polak, ROSE & ATKINSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Lowell W. Rogers appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001- 1461 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), for long term disability benefits. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards employed by the district court. Ellis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. , 126 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir. 1997). Where a benefits plan expressly grants to the plan administrator discretionary authority to construe its provisions, as the parties stipulated in this case, the court reviews the decision of the plan administrator under an abuse of discretion standard. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch , 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). Under this deferential standard, the plan administrator’s decision will not be disturbed by the court if it is reasonable, even if the court would have independently reached a different decision. Ellis , 126 F.3d at 232. A fiduciary’s decision is reasonable if supported by substantial evidence. Lefebre v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Mgmt. Disability Benefits Plan , 747 F.2d 197, 208 (4th Cir. 1984). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp. , No. CA-01- 101-3 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 15, 2001). We grant the motion to submit the case on briefs because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 R OGERS v. A MERICAN E LECTRIC P OWER S ERVICE
#### §§ 711.161-711.169 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York v. Leslie Stanley, Jr.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
§ 19.11-3 Regular survivor annuity for a spouse. ( a ) In the absence of a joint election or a spousal agreement to the contrary, a participant or former participant who is separated from active service on or after February 15, 1981 who is married at the commencement of his/her annuity shall provide a regular survivor annuity for a spouse under § 19.10-2 equal to the maximum amount that remains available under limitations stated in paragraph (b) of that section after allowing for any commitment of a regular survivor annuity for a former spouse who has not remarried prior to age 60 and who is alive on the date the former participant becomes eligible for an annuity.
( b ) A regular survivor annuity is also payable to a surviving spouse for whom a principal elected an annuity under § 19.10-3, § 19.10-4, or § 19.11-2(c) following a marriage after comencement of his/her annuity.
( c ) The amount of a regular survivor annuity equals 55 percent of the base designated for the benefit at the time the principal's annuity commenced, adjusted by the total percentage of cost-of-living increases the principal was receiving at death.
( d ) A survivor annuity is payable to a surviving spouse only if that person was married to the principal at the time of his/her death or if the spouse became a former spouse under the definition in § 19.2(k).
[46 FR 12958, Feb. 19, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 46 FR 18970, Mar. 27, 1981]
#### Jacob Schmitt, Respondent, v. The City of New York and Others, Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blaekmar and Jayeox, JJ.
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 PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE 

Case No. C 08-5048 MMC 

GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP 

MATT GONZALEZ (SBN 153486) 

G. WHITNEY LEIGH (SBN 153457) 

MATT SPRINGMAN (SBN 252508) 

Two Shaw Alley, Third Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 512-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 512-2001 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ALPHONSO OLIPHANT, ROGER 

GAINEY and BRUCE WOODARD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ALPHONSO OLIPHANT, an individual, 

ROGER GAINEY, an individual, and 

BRUCE WOODARD, an individual, ROES 

1-25; 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, a public entity, SAN 

FRANCISCO JUVENILE PROBATION 

DEPARTMENT, a public entity, WILLIAM 

SIFFERMAN, an individual, DOES 1-25; 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 08-5048 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 

Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 47 Filed 02/04/10 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 PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE 

Case No. C 08-5048 MMC 

2

 On February 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion pursuant to Civ. L.R. 6-2 and 7-

10 to continue the hearing on Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment from February 26, 

2010 to April 2, 2010 (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). 

 Having considered the papers filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion and the record in this 

case, and good cause having been found, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and 

ORDERS the following: 

1. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment is CONTINUED from 

February 26, 2010 to April 2, 2010. 

2. The deadline for Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion For Summary 

Judgment is set at March 5, 2010. 

3. The deadline for Defendants’ Reply is set at March 19, 2010. 

 

Dated: February __, 2010 By:_________________________ 

 The Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Court 

and there being no showing of prejudice to defendants,

^

4

Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC Document 47 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### BROOKE GANSER *v.*ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY

(AC 25731)

Dranginis, Bishop and DiPentima, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 1

officially released May 3, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
### §4767. Termination of grants

Whenever the Office, after giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or general local government concerned, finds—

(1) that a program or project has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of this chapter; or

(2) that in the operation of the program or project there is a failure to comply substantially with any such provision;

the Office shall notify the State or general local government of its findings and no further payments may be made to such government by the Office until it is satisfied that such noncompliance has been, or will promptly be, corrected. However, the Office may authorize the continuance of payments to those projects approved under this chapter which are not involved in the noncompliance.

(Pub. L. 91–648, title V, §507, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1928; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, means the provisions of subchapters I, II, III, and IV of this chapter. See section 4761 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Office", meaning Office of Personnel Management, substituted in text for "Commission", meaning Civil Service Commission, pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1978, §102, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783, set out under section 1101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which transferred functions vested by statute in Civil Service Commission and Chairman thereof to Director of Office of Personnel Management (except as otherwise specified), effective Jan. 1, 1979, as provided by section 1–102 of Ex. Ord. No. 12107, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055, set out under section 1101 of Title 5.