alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 891.545 Completion of project, cost certification, and HUD approvals. ( a ) The Borrower must satisfy the requirements for completion of construction and substantial rehabilitation and approvals by HUD before submission of a final requisition for disbursement of loan proceeds.
( b ) The Borrower shall submit to the field office all documentation required for final disbursement of the loan, including: ( 1 ) A Borrower's/Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual Cost, showing the actual cost to the mortgagor of the construction contract, architectural, legal, organizational, offsite costs, and all other items of eligible expense. The certificate shall not include as actual cost any kickbacks, rebates, trade discounts, or other similar payments to the mortgagor or to any of its officers, directors, or members.
( 2 ) A verification of the Certificate of Actual Cost by an independent Certified Public Accountant or independent public accountant acceptable to the field office.
( 3 ) In the case of projects not subject to competitive bidding, a certification of the general contractor (and of such subcontractors, material suppliers, and equipment lessors as the Assistant Secretary or field office may require), on a form prescribed by the Assistant Secretary, as to all actual costs paid for labor, materials, and subcontract work under the general contract exclusive of the builder's fee and kickbacks, rebates, trade discounts, or other similar payments to the general contractor, the mortgagor, or any of its officers, directors, stockholders, partners, or members.
( c ) In lieu of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) of this section, a simplified form of cost certification prescribed by the Secretary may be completed and submitted by the Borrower for projects with mortgages of $500,000 or less. The simplified cost certification shall be verified by an independent Certified Public Accountant or an independent public accountant in a manner acceptable to the Secretary.
( d ) If the Borrower's certified costs provided in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section and as approved by HUD are less than the loan amount, the contract rents will be reduced accordingly.
( e ) If the contract rents are reduced pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the maximum annual HAP Contract commitment will be reduced. If contract rents are reduced based on cost certification after HAP Contract execution, any overpayment after the effective date of the Contract will be recovered from the Borrower by HUD.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0044)
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
 

______________________________________________________________ 

Page 39 is not included in this copy. 

Pages through are not included in this copy. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

__ __ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

__ __ Identity of product impurities. 

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

__ __ Description of quality control procedures. 

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

__ __ FIFRA registration data. 

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ . 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

__ __ Internal deliberative information. 

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication. 

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency.
| Name   |                                       | Jurisdiction of      Incorporated/Organization |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                       |                                           |
|   | Medtech Holdings,      Inc.                |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | Medtech Products      Inc.                 |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | Prestige Brands      Holdings, Inc.        |                                           |   | Virginia |
|   | Prestige Brands,      Inc.            |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | Prestige Brands      International, Inc.   |                                           |   | Virginia |
|   | Prestige Brands (UK)      Limited          |                                           |   | England and      Wales |
|   | Prestige Personal      Care Holdings, Inc. |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | Prestige Personal      Care, Inc.          |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | Prestige Services      Corp.               |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | The Cutex      Company                     |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | The Denorex      Company                   |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | The Spic and Span      Company             |                                           |   | Delaware |
|   | Wartner USA      B.V.                      |                                           |   | Netherlands |
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Andrew Wiborg, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 7,179.

Information charging unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, also with possession, disposing of, bartering, furnishing and selling same. Judgment against defendant and sentence of a $509 fine and 120 days imprisonment on each of two counts. Error to the County Court of Lake county; the Hon. William C. De Wolf, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Reversed and cause remanded.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

Orvis & Parmer, for plaintiff in error. A. V. Smith, State’s Attorney, and Sidney H. Block, Assistant State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 31.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Paul Fong, the Chief Executive Officer of Furio Resources Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Furio Resources 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 subsidiary, 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 year 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 controls 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: July 26, 2005



/s/ Paul Fong

Name: Paul Fong

Title: President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Director
#### Edmund Preiss, Appellant, v. Dinhofer Bros., Inc., Respondent.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy thereof on the respondent. The original exhibits shall be submitted upon the argument of the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §1012. Publications and reports

Within 45 days after May 30, 1980, the Board shall publish, and make available for distribution by the Rock Island Railroad to all eligible employees, a document which describes in detail the rights of such employees under sections 1005, 1006,1 1007, and 1014 of this title.

(Pub. L. 96–254, title I, §115, May 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 405.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1006 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §1144(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 669.

1 See References in Text note below.
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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 ("Report"), the undersigned
certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date:      November 14, 2006


BY:    /S/ DEBI KOKINOS
---    ----------------
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



                                      -33-
#### § 883.301 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to newly constructed and substantially rehabilitated housing allocated contract authority under subpart B of this part and processed and constructed under the Fast Tract Procedures of subpart D. The definitions contained in § 883.302 and the provisions of § 883.307(b) regarding review and approval of financing documents, however, apply to all of this part.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIEL KULJIS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 2 1

- 3009

[ June 23, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Daniel Arthur Casey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 08

- 019897

- CF

- 10A

.
Daniel Tibbitt of Daniel J. Tibbitt P.A., North Miami, for appellant

.
No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

C IKLIN , C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  a)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Famous Daves of America, Inc. for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Famous Daves of America, Inc.
 Dated:  November 9, 2007
    By:
    /s/ David GoronkinDavid GoronkinPresident and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:  November 9, 2007
    
    /s/ Diana Garvis PurcelDiana Garvis PurcelChief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 26.48 Posthearing briefs.

Posthearing briefs shall be filed only upon order by the ALJ.
§ 401.481 Subsidy layering limitations on HUD funds. ( a ) *PAE subsidy layering certification required for Restructuring Plan.* The PAE must certify to HUD that any Restructuring Plan for which it submits a proposed Restructuring Commitment meets the requirements of either paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
( b ) *Purpose of subsidy layering certification.* The purpose of the subsidy layering certification is to ensure that any HUD assistance provided to the owner of a project pursuant to a Restructuring Plan is no more than is necessary to permit the project to continue to house tenants with an income mix comparable to the income mix of the project before the Restructuring Plan is implemented, after taking into account other Government assistance described in section 102(b)(1) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545(b)(1)). This section does not limit a PAE from presenting for approval a Restructuring Plan that includes project reconfiguration (*e.g.,* conversion of efficiency units to one-bedroom units) where necessary to meet the needs of the community, provided the conditions of § 401.452 are also met.
( c ) *Relationship to section 102(d) of HUD Reform Act.* HUD is not required to perform a separate subsidy layering analysis under section 102(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545(d)), section 911 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 3545 note), or § 4.13 of this title for any HUD assistance that is included in the Restructuring Plan. HUD will adopt the PAE certification under this section if a HUD certification otherwise would be required under section 102(d).
( d ) *Certification under existing HUD guidelines.* If the PAE has delegated authority from HUD to make section 102(d) subsidy layering certifications in accordance with section 911 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, the PAE may comply with this section by using a procedure substantially similar to the procedure described in the Administrative Guidelines published on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64748), or any subsequent procedure adopted by HUD to implement section 911.
( e ) *Other procedures.* If the PAE does not have the delegated authority described in paragraph (d) of this section, the PAE must submit to HUD for approval proposed procedures for making the subsidy layering certification under this section. Any procedures must conform to the procedures described in paragraph (d) of this section to the extent feasible and appropriate.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3095

___________________________

Sean Edward Krier

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Derek Gosnell, Captain; Weston Weathington, Captain; Bruce Billings; Shane

Jobe; Manny Sandoval; Steve Dill

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: February 7, 2024

Filed: February 12, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Iowa inmate Sean Krier appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising Eighth Amendment excessive

force claims based on two incidents. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. See

Gareis v. 3M Co., 9 F.4th 812, 818 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review).

We agree with the district court that, based on the video evidence Krier

submitted, no reasonable jury could find that the defendant correctional officers used

force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm in either incident. See Wilkins v.

Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curiam) (core judicial inquiry in Eighth

Amendment excessive-force claim is whether force was used in good-faith effort to

restore or maintain discipline, or maliciously or sadistically to cause harm); Scott v.

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007) (where non-movant’s version of events was

blatantly contradicted by video evidence such that no reasonable jury could believe

it, court should not adopt that version of facts in ruling on summary judgment motion,

but should view facts in light depicted by video).

As to Krier’s other arguments, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate

judge’s order denying Krier’s motion for discovery and a continuance, as Krier did

not appeal the order to the district court. See McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679

F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (declining to review appellant’s challenge to

magistrate’s order denying non-dispositive motion, because he did not object to such

order before district court). We decline to consider the arguments regarding law

library access Krier newly raises in his reply brief. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp.,

481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief

are waived).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
**Exhibit
      31.2**






**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Richard J. Mullin, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MISCOR Group,
      Ltd.;




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 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
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;




b)  Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.




Date:
      March 29, 2007.







/s/
              Richard J. MullinRichard
                J. MullinChief
                Financial Officer
#### Vincent J. Licata, Respondent, v. Peter J. Marra et al., Appellants.

Motion for reargument granted. Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
§ 966.1 Purpose and applicability. ( a ) This part is applicable to public housing.
( b ) Subpart A of this part prescribes the provisions that must be incorporated in leases for public housing dwelling units.
( c ) Subpart B of this part prescribes public housing grievance hearing requirements.
[66 FR 28802, May 24, 2001]