alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Kelly H. Nelson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Digital Ecosystems Corp. (the “Registrant” or the“Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: July 14, 2006           /s/ Kelly H. Nelson                   Kelly H. Nelson              Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Woodard, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 817]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 30,1996 *(People v Woodard,*234 AD2d 613 [1996], *cert denied*520 US 1266 [1997]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 24, 1994.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
Ovut 

Cherry 

application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 

682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 

Appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to 

present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing, for failing to move 

to sever the trial from his co-defendant's trial, for failing to file a motion to 

suppress the eyewitness identification, and because there was an 

irreconcilable conflict between counsel and appellant. Appellant failed to 

provide this court with any of the necessary documents in order to review 

his claims. Appellant did not provide this court with any transcripts of 

trial, sentencing, or other hearings at the trial court level, nor did 

appellant provide this court with the co-defendant's motion to sever. The 

burden is on the appellant to provide an adequate record enabling this 

court to review assignments of error. Thomas v. State, 120 Nev. 37, 43 

n.4, 83 P.3d 818, 822 n.4 (2004); see also Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 

612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980). As appellant failed to meet that burden, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

44.4 cistati , J. 

Hardesty 

es;e741 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

J. 

J. 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Story Law Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAcoustic Analysis and Design of the E-STA MSA SimulatorThe Orion European Service Module Structural Test Article (E-STA) Acoustic Test was completed in May 2016 to verify that the European Service Module (ESM) can withstand qualification acoustic environments. The test article required an aft closeout to simulate the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Stage Adapter (MSA) cavity, however, the flight MSA design was too cost-prohibitive to build. NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) had 6 months to design an MSA Simulator that could recreate the qualification prediction MSA cavity sound pressure level to within a reasonable tolerance. This paper summarizes the design and analysis process to arrive at a design for the MSA Simulator, and then compares its performance to the final prediction models created prior to test.Document ID20160014882Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBittinger, Samantha A.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredDecember 29, 2016Publication DateDecember 1, 2016Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceAcousticsReport/Patent NumberE-19322GRC-E-DAA-TN37647NASA/TM-2016-219434Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 747797.02.04.30.03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsacousticstestorionAvailable DownloadsNameType20160014882.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79498-79499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27172]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4558-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]


California; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California (FEMA-4558-DR), dated August 22, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 12, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of August 22, 2020.

    Butte County for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already 
designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for

[[Page 79499]]

debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and 
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program).
    Mendocino County for Individual Assistance and assistance for 
debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and 
B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program.
    Plumas County for debris removal [Category A] and permanent work 
[Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency protective 
measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under 
the Public Assistance program).
    Stanislaus County for Individual Assistance and Public 
Assistance, including direct federal assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-27172 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### L. C. Miller, trustee in bankruptcy for the estate of Frank R. Bertolasi, bankrupt, appellant, v. Standard Foundry & Manufacturing Company and The Commercial National Bank of Rockford, appellees.

Gen. No. 7,201.

Suit by creditors of a bankrupt to obtain possession of goods returned to manufacturers by bankrupt. Decree for defendants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago county; the Hon. Robert K. Welsh, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed September 7, 1923.

Garrett, Maynard & Hull and A. Philip Smith, for appellant. Fisher, North, Welsh & Linseott, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 18.30 Windows and lenses. ( a ) MSHA may waive testing of materials for windows or lenses except headlight lenses. When tested, material for windows or lenses shall meet the test requirements prescribed in § 18.66 and shall be sealed in place or provided with flange joints in accordance with § 18.31.
( b ) Windows or lenses shall be protected from mechanical damage by structural design, location, or guarding. Windows or lenses, other than headlight lenses, having an exposed area greater than 8 square inches, shall be provided with guarding or equivalent.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80825-80826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27362]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. EA-20-006 and EA-20-007; ASLBP No. 21-969-01-EA-BD01]


In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority; Establishment of 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission, see 37 FR 28710 (Dec. 29, 
1972), and the Commission's regulations, see, e.g., 10 CFR 2.104, 
2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321, notice is hereby given that 
an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to 
preside over the following proceeding:

Tennessee Valley Authority

(Enforcement Action)

    This Board is being established pursuant to a referral from the NRC 
Office of the Secretary of two hearing requests, one from the Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA), and another from Erin Henderson, challenging an 
order imposing a civil penalty on TVA. The challenged order, issued on 
October 29, 2020, by the NRC Office of Enforcement, was published in 
the Federal Register on November 4, 2020. See 85 FR 70203 (Nov 4, 
2020).

[[Page 80826]]

    The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:

Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555-0001
E. Roy Hawkens, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dr. Sue H. Abreu, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. See 10 CFR 2.302.

    Dated December 8, 2020.
Edward R. Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
Rockville, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 2020-27362 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest Goodman, Sr., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County, rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Appellant assigns as the *“*principal error relied on in this appeal ” the trial court’s response to this question asked by the jury upon returning to the courtroom after commencing its deliberations: “ Was a statement taken in the hospital from, Dora Goodman [the victim] as to how she received her wounds? If so, may we see it or an exact copy?” The court replied: *“*In answer to your question, I wish to say that any statement made in a hospital by Dora Goodman, if one were made, would clearly fall within the hearsay rule and would be inadmissible, so you are not to concern yourselves with something that is not in evidence, and this matter is clearly outside any point that you should decide or discuss among yourselves. It would be within the hearsay rule. Any statement by Dora Goodman in the hospital would be inadmissible and you are not to concern yourselves with it.” Appellant correctly argues that the court’s exposition was erroneous in that not *989every statement by the decedent would necessarily have been inadmissible, but that a statement might be received if shown to be a dying declaration or to be within some other exception to the hearsay rule. Nevertheless, the inaccurate or incomplete statement of the rule of evidence was not an instruction on which the jury was to act in its determination of the case or one by which it might be misled; and the court made it abundantly clear that the jurors were *“*not to concern [themselves] with something that is not in evidence ”, and twice repeated the substance of that admonition. The error was not called to the court’s attention by objection, by exception or otherwise and, in context, seems to us to have been completely harmless. We find, in the record generally, no error of moment and certainly none which affected any substantial right of the defendant. (Code Crim. Pro., § 542.) The evidence of guilt which the jury was entitled to accept was strong, if not, in fact, overwhelming. The trial court supervised the trial with scrupulous fairness and submitted the case to the jury trader an exemplary charge, to which no exception was interposed. Judgment unanimously affirmed. Present-—Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.
§ 1227.401 What are a State's responsibilities if it processes production reports or royalty reports? In processing production reports or royalty reports you must: ( a ) Process reports accurately and timely as provided in the *Standards* and your delegation agreement;
( b ) Identify and resolve fatal errors to use in subsequent error correction that the State or ONRR performs;
( c ) Accept multiple forms of electronic media from reporters, as ONRR specifies;
( d ) Timely transmit required production or royalty data to ONRR and other affected Federal agencies;
( e ) Access well, lease, agreement, and reporter reference data from ONRR and provide updated information to ONRR;
( f ) For production reports, maintain adequate system software edits to ensure compliance with the provisions of 30 CFR part 1210—Forms and Reports, the ONRR *Minerals Production Reporter Handbook*, any interagency memorandum of understanding to which ONRR is a party, and the *Standards*;
( g ) For royalty reports, maintain adequate system software edits to ensure compliance with the provisions of 30 CFR part 1218, the *Oil and Gas Payor Handbook, Volume II,* “Dear Payor” letters, and the *Standards*; and
( h ) Comply with the procedures for appealed demands or orders, including meeting timeframes, supplying information, and using the appropriate format.
[62 FR 43084, Aug. 12, 1997, as amended at 67 FR 19112, Apr. 18, 2002; 73 FR 15898, Mar. 26, 2008; 75 FR 61087, Oct. 4, 2010]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997 (unaudited) and the Statement of 
Operations for the three months ended September 30, 1997 (unaudited) and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
              
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                 0
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       0
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  0
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           0
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (8,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (8,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (8,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0

        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.165 What reporting adjustments must I make for processing allowances? ( a ) If your actual processing allowance is less than the amount that you claimed on form ONRR-2014 for each month during the allowance reporting period, you must pay additional royalties due, plus late payment interest calculated under §§ 1218.54 and 1218.102 of this chapter from the date when you took the deduction to the date when you repay the difference.
( b ) If the actual processing allowance is greater than the amount that you claimed on form ONRR-2014 for any month during the period reported on the allowance form, you are entitled to a credit, plus interest.
Exhibit 99

                    CERTIFICATIONS

	I, Spencer Krumholz, Chairman and CEO of Liteglow
Industries, Inc., hereby certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-
QSB of Liteglow Industries, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 quarterly
report;

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

4.	I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I 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 me 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 as of
a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5.	I have disclosed, based on my most recent
evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and to the
audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):

	(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

	(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.	I have indicated in this quarterly 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 my
most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:   May 13, 2003       By:/s/Spencer Krumholz
                              ----------------------------
                              Spencer Krumholz,
                              Chairman and CEO