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

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION*

I, Perry T. Massie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
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 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 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     (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 31, 2005               /s/ Perry T. Massie
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   PERRY T. MASSIE, Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. 

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topic:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

                        Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;                              ( print page 78890)    

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings; and

Disclosure of non-public information.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

 Dated: December 2, 2020. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020-26892 Filed 12-3-20; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### § 282.10 Jurisdiction and responsibilities of Director.

Subject to the authority of the Secretary, the following activities are subject to the regulations in this part and are under the jurisdiction of the Director: Exploration, testing, and mining operations together with the associated environmental protection measures needed to permit those activities to be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner; handling, measurement, and transportation of OCS minerals; and other operations and activities conducted pursuant to a lease issued under 30 CFR part 581, or pursuant to a right of use and easement granted under 30 CFR 582.30, by or on behalf of a lessee or the holder of a right of use and easement.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.912 What plans must I submit under the Platform Verification Program? If your platform, associated structure, or major modification meets the criteria in § 250.910, you must submit the following plans to the Regional Supervisor for approval: ( a ) *Design verification plan.* You may submit your design verification plan to BSEE with or subsequent to the submittal of your Development and Production Plan (DPP) or Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) to BOEM. Your design verification must be conducted by, or be under the direct supervision of, a registered professional civil or structural engineer or equivalent, or a naval architect or marine engineer or equivalent, with previous experience in directing the design of similar facilities, systems, structures, or equipment. For floating platforms, you must ensure that the requirements of the USCG for structural integrity and stability, e.g., verification of center of gravity, *etc.,* have been met. Your design verification plan must include the following: ( 1 ) All design documentation specified in § 250.905 of this subpart;
( 2 ) Abstracts of the computer programs used in the design process; and
( 3 ) A summary of the major design considerations and the approach to be used to verify the validity of these design considerations.
( b ) *Fabrication verification plan.* The Regional Supervisor must approve your fabrication verification plan before you may initiate any related operations. Your fabrication verification plan must include the following: ( 1 ) Fabrication drawings and material specifications for artificial island structures and major members of concrete-gravity and steel-gravity structures;
( 2 ) For jacket and floating structures, all the primary load-bearing members included in the space-frame analysis; and
( 3 ) A summary description of the following: ( i ) Structural tolerances;
( ii ) Welding procedures;
( iii ) Material (concrete, gravel, or silt) placement methods;
( iv ) Fabrication standards;
( v ) Material quality-control procedures;
( vi ) Methods and extent of nondestructive examinations for welds and materials; and
( vii ) Quality assurance procedures.
( c ) *Installation verification plan.* The Regional Supervisor must approve your installation verification plan before you may initiate any related operations. Your installation verification plan must include: ( 1 ) A summary description of the planned marine operations;
( 2 ) Contingencies considered;
( 3 ) Alternative courses of action; and
( 4 ) An identification of the areas to be inspected. You must specify the acceptance and rejection criteria to be used for any inspections conducted during installation, and for the post-installation verification inspection.
( d ) You must combine fabrication verification and installation verification plans for manmade islands or platforms fabricated and installed in place.
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SATBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


I, Moshael Straus, as Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Odd Job Stores,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) The accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
           2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
           "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 14, 2003              By: /s/ Moshael Straus
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Moshael Straus
                                       Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer
#### Geraldine C. Link, Appellant, v. Gerald Link, Respondent.

Order denying appellant wife’s motion for an allowance of printing costs and a counsel fee to prosecute' the appeal unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent. Concur — Breitel, j. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
#### § 56.11009 Walkways along conveyors.

Walkways with outboard railings shall be provided wherever persons are required to walk alongside elevated conveyor belts. Inclined railed walkways shall be nonskid or provided with cleats.
#### § 35.13 Withdrawal of certification.

MSHA reserves the right to rescind for cause, at any time, any certificate of approval granted under this part.
#### § 36.4 Mobile diesel-powered transportation equipment for which certificates of approval may be granted.

Certificates of approval will be granted for completely assembled mobile diesel-powered transportation equipment only. Subassemblies or components may be granted letters of certification in accordance with § 36.5.
### §53513. Corporate reorganizations and partnership changes

Under joint regulations—

(1) a transfer of a capital construction fund from one person to another person in a transaction to which section 381 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 381) applies may be treated as if the transaction is not a nonqualified withdrawal; and

(2) a similar rule shall be applied to a continuation of a partnership (within the meaning of subchapter K of chapter 1 of such Code (26 U.S.C. 701 et seq.)).

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1599.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53513 | 46 App.:1177(i). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VI, §607(i), 49 Stat. 2005; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§23–28, 52 Stat. 960; Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §10, 53 Stat. 1185; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §§17–19, 66 Stat. 764; Pub. L. 85–637, Aug. 14, 1958, 72 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 86–518, §1, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 87–45, §6, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 91; Pub. L. 87–271, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 570; restated Pub. L. 91–469, §21(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1031. |

Section
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 1998 AND  STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE QUARTER
ENDING  SEPT.  30, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         2,602,375
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  64,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,244,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,910,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          395,650
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,515,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,910,971
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,635
<CGS>                                          190,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               52,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### GALEF v. FINKELSTEIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Want op Prejudice.

Where defendant asserted that he had overpaid' plaintiff, and, on appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in his favor, it appeared that a finding for defendant might have been proper, a contention on the part of plaintiff that the judgment was improper, in that he should have had judgment for a larger sum, or judgment should have been rendered for defendant, was untenable.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

Action by Isaac Galef against Max Finkelstein and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Charles Dushkind, for appellant.

Klein & Burkan, for respondents.

BLANCHARD, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in his favor for the sum of $6. The plaintiff’s claim is founded upon a balance due for labor performed upon contract with the defendant, and also for certain extra work. The defendant denied certain of plaintiff’s claims, and asserted that he had overpaid the plaintiff. The position of the appellant upon this appeal is that the court below was not justified in giving judgment in his favor for so small a sum; that either the court must have given judgment in his favor for a larger sum, or must have found in defendant’s favor. There is no claim made by the appellant upon this appeal that, had the court below found for the defendant, it would not have been justified from the evidence. On the contrary, the impression is conveyed that such a finding might have been proper. If such a finding were proper, how can it be said that the plaintiff is damaged by-getting a judgment? He certainly is not prejudiced by securing more than it is conceded the trial court need have given him.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

BISCHOFF, J. (concurring).

There was a disputed item of services rendered, for superintending certain work, as to the reasonable value of which services there was room for judicial determination in *857an amount ranging from $10 to $50. The adjustment of the account upon the basis of the defendant’s figures, save for an appropriate allowance greater than the small amount conceded by defendant upon this item, could properly result in the allowance to the plaintiff of the amount found for the purposes of this judgment.

Upon this ground the recovery was not inconsistent with the proof, and I concur for affirmance.
#### § 42.30 Procedure for payment.

When notified of acceptance for a course by the Academy, applicants shall submit a check or money order to the Academy, payable to the “Mine Safety and Health Administration” in the amount indicated by the course announcement prior to the commencement of the course.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.7

                                                              SEQUOIA 2004 DEALS

           BANK OF AMERICA, N.A OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
           SECTION 11.20 OF THE AGREEMENTS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A HERETO

            I, H. Randall Chestnut, Senior Vice President of Bank of America,
N.A. (the "Servicer"), hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.20 of the Pooling
and Servicing Agreements listed on Exhibit I hereto (collectively, the
"Agreements") that: (a) a review of the activities of the Servicer during
calendar year 2004 and of the performance of the Servicer under the Agreements
has been made under my supervision, and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based
on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the
Agreements throughout calendar year 2004.

Dated: March 15, 2005

                                            Bank of America, N.A.
                                                as Servicer

                                            By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: H. Randall Chestnut
                                                Title: Senior Vice President

<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBITS

1.  Sequoia 2004-1
2.  Sequoia 2004-2
3.  Sequoia 2004-3
4.  Sequoia 2004-4
5.  Sequoia 2004-5
6.  Sequoia 2004-6
7.  Sequoia 2004-7
8.  Sequoia 2004-8
9.  Sequoia 2004-9
10. Sequoia 2004-10
11. Sequoia 2004-11
12. Sequoia 2004-12
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7520

JAYSON BRADLEY WHITE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PRIME CARE LLC; BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissoner , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00112

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jayson Bradley White , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7520 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Jayson Bradley White appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c ivil action . The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistra te judge recommended that the action be dismissed and advised White that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although White received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See
Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7520 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7520 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.1400 How does BSEE begin the civil penalty process?

This subpart explains BSEEs civil penalty procedures whenever a lessee, operator or other person engaged in oil, gas, sulphur or other minerals operations in the OCS has a violation. Whenever BSEE determines, on the basis of available evidence, that a violation occurred and a civil penalty review is appropriate, it will prepare a case file. BSEE will appoint a Reviewing Officer.
130 STAT. 1508 PUBLIC LAW 114–295—DEC. 16, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5150: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Sept. 20, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 5, considered and passed Senate; passage vitiated. 

Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–295 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3031 Veterans 

Road West in Staten Island, New York, as the ‘‘Leonard Montalto Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LEONARD MONTALTO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3031 Veterans Road West in Staten Island, 

New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Leonard Montalto 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Leonard Montalto Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 16, 2016. 

Dec. 16, 2016 

[H.R. 5150] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS