alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, Chief Executive Officer of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Erie Family
Life Insurance Company;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; andc.
    
    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:  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; andb.
    
    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: October 27, 2004/s/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. Ludrof, President & CEO
 30
#### BROWN v. HEIGHT

No. 415P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 632

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
Exhibit 10.35





March 31,
2006


 


Mr. Scott
D. Peters


c/o
Golf Trust of America, Inc.


10
N. Adger’s Wharf


Charleston,
SC  29401


 


RE:  Golf Trust of America, Inc.:  Amendment to Employment Agreement


 


Dear
Scott:


 


With reference to that certain Fourth Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated August 29,
2003, by and between you and Golf Trust of America, Inc. (the “Company”),
executed by you for the benefit of the Company, and in consideration of the
modified obligations of the respective parties hereto, you (the “Executive”)
and the Company hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Date of Termination of Modified Schedule: Section
5.A (c) (iii) of the Employment Agreement is hereby revised to read “September
30, 2006.”


 


2.                                       Milestone Payment.  The Company acknowledges and agrees that (i) the
Executive is entitled to the balance of the performance milestone payment
described in Section 4.A.(a) of the Employment Agreement in the
amount of $165,230, plus accrued interest, and (ii) no outstanding
conditions to payment of such performance milestone exist.


 


3.                                       Employment Agreement.  Except as expressly amended and/or restated
by this letter agreement, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.


 

















 


If the foregoing correctly reflects our
understandings, please execute this letter agreement and return a duly executed
copy thereof to the undersigned.


 


Thank you.


 


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ W. Bradley Blair, II

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  W. Bradley Blair, II

  
	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  AGREED TO AND APPROVED BY:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Scott D. Peters

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Scott D. Peters

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date: March 31, 2006 (“Effective Date”)
§ 651.44 Incomplete information. When the proposed action will have significant adverse effects on the human environment, and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the proponent will ensure that the EIS addresses the issue as follows: ( a ) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the Army will include the information in the EIS.
( b ) If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known (for example, the means for obtaining it are beyond the state of the art), the proponent will include in the EIS: ( 1 ) A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable.
( 2 ) A statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment.
( 3 ) A summary of existing credible scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment.
( 4 ) An evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR.R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10109

(Summary Calendar)

LEON HARPER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-1940-X

January 20, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leon Harper, Texas prisoner #640518, appeals from the district court’s dismissal without

prejudice of his habeas petition for failure to exhaust his state remedies as to three grounds. Harper
argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint under the exhaustion doctrine. 

Respondent concedesthat Harper has exhausted hisstate court remedies and that the district

court’s judgment should be reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further

proceedings. A review of the state-court records confirms the parties’ position. Harper exhausted

state remedies on the first three issues raised in his federal habeas petition by presenting them on

direct appeal to the court of appeals and on petition for discretionary review to the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and this case is

REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### Etta G. Douglas, Appellant, v. New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

Judgment insofar as it dismissed the complaint against defendant, the City of New York, unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event and judgment otherwise unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff concedes that she failed to establish a prima facie case against any defendants except the City of New York and the Transit Authority. We agree and further find that the complaint was properly dismissed as to the defendant, Transit Authority. Proof was submitted, however, that presented an issue of fact as to the defendant, City of New York. Two eye witnesses to the accident were leaving the bus at or about the same time as plaintiff. Both testified (hat after appellant left the bus she took a few steps and fell. The defect in' the sidewalk that may have caused the fall was described as to size and proximity to the point *708of plaintiff’s passage. Photographs of the condition of the walk were placed in evidence. In this state of the proof it was error to dismiss the complaint as to the city. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.
### §1433. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–387, title I, §101(b)(3), Aug. 11, 1988, 102 Stat. 931

Section, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title IV, §421, as added Sept. 11, 1964, Pub. L. 88–585, §2, 78 Stat. 927, related to penalties for misuse of feed intended to relieve distress or preserve foundation herds. See section 1471j of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 15 days after Aug. 11, 1988, see section 101(c)(1) of Pub. L. 100–387, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment note under section 1427 of this title.
----- F o r wa r ded b y B r i an S h r a g e r / R T P / U S E PA

/ U S on 02 / 18 / 2011 03 : 12 PM

-----

F r o m: Br ian S h r age r / R T P / U SE P A

/ US T o: " Higgi n s , Co r t n e y " < Co r t ne y _Hi g gin s @ o m b

. eop

. go v> C c: J i m E dd i nge r / R T P / U SEP A

/ U S @ E PA Da t e: 02 / 01 / 2011 02 : 40 PM S ubje c t: F w : B o ile r bene f i t s b r i e f i n g m a t e r ials

Co r t ne y,

A t t a c hed a r e t wo d o c u m e n t s t h a t s houl d he l p w i t h t o m o rr ow m o r n i ng 's di sc u ss ion on t h e R I A

. T he f i rs t do c u m en t i s a s i m ple e x plana t ion of how we c al c ula t ed t h e b e ne f i t s f o r t he s e r ule s

. T h e s e c ond do c u m en t, whi c h y ou r eque s t ed

, i s t he r e v i s e d T S D t ha t i n c l ude s m o r e in f o rm a t ion

on e m i ss ion s.

T h an k s!

Br ian

(S ee a t t a c hed f ile : How B ene f i t s w e r e c al c u l a t e d f o r B o i le r M A C T and B oile r Ar ea S ou rc e Rule

. pd f )(S ee a t t a c hed f ile : E PA- 454_R

- 10

- 0 0 6

. p d f)
#### Carl W. WOLF, Plaintiff, v. Donald CHATTERTON, Parole Officer, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 18366-3.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, Western Division.

May 18, 1970.

*155Carl W. Wolf, pro se.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

WILLIAM H. BECKER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, a federal convict confined in the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, has submitted a letter dated April 22, 1970, in which he complains that the defendant forged his signature to a motion for records pursuant to a motion to vacate sentence under § 2255, Title, 28 U.S.C., filed in plaintiff’s sentencing court, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma; and that defendant also prevented the original § 2255 motion from being mailed to that Court. Plaintiff states that thereby he was denied due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and requests that this Court “take necessary steps in this matter.”

Treated as a petition for habeas corpus or other extraordinary relief to restrain and prevent present and future harm to the rights of plaintiff, however, the petition should be denied as moot. Plaintiff is no longer imprisoned in the Medical Center. Therefore, the alleged denials complained of cannot be continuing to merit consideration for habeas corpus or other similar relief. See In re Baptista (W.D.Mo.) 206 F.Supp. 288.

Nor can this action be treated as an action under the Federal Civil Rights Act, Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.C. That section grants a cause of action against state officers and others acting under color of state law, but not against federal officers. See Casey v. Ciccone (W.D.Mo.) 306 F.Supp. 698, and cases therein cited.

Treated as a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the action cannot be entertained in this Court because there is no allegation that administrative remedies have been exhausted under § 2675(a) of Title 28, U.S.C., providing that claims against the United States for money damages for injuries or loss of property caused by an employee of the United States within the scope of his office or employment shall first be presented “to the appropriate Federal Agency.”

Finally, treated as a claim for damages either under the diversity statute, Section 1332 of Title 28, U.S.C., or under the “federal question” statute, Section 1331, Title 28, U.S.C., the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state the requisite amount in controversy.

To save time and unproductive effort, plaintiff will be granted leave to pro*156ceed in forma pauperis. For the foregoing reasons, however, the complaint herein should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is therefore

Ordered that plaintiff be, and he is hereby, granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It is further

Ordered and adjudged that the complaint herein be, and it is hereby, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1542 

Supporting the designation of October 15, 2024, as ‘‘National Pregnancy 

and Infant Loss Remembrance Day’’ and recognizing the people who 

have lost a pregnancy or an infant. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 2024 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mr. CAREY, Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina, Ms. 

SEWELL, Ms. CROCKETT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. 

NORTON, and Mr. TRONE) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of October 15, 2024, as ‘‘National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day’’ 

and recognizing the people who have lost a pregnancy 

or an infant. 

Whereas 2024 marks the 18th nationally recognized ‘‘Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day’’; 

Whereas each year, approximately 1,000,000 pregnancies in 

the United States end in miscarriage, stillbirth, or the 

death of a newborn; 

Whereas pregnancy and infant loss can affect families long 

after the loss; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1542 IH 

Whereas loss of an infant or a pregnancy can negatively affect a person’s mental health; 

Whereas families would benefit from bereavement leave from 

work to take care of themselves and their families; 

Whereas people who have experienced pregnancy loss or infant loss should not have their experiences minimized or 

stigmatized; 

Whereas Congress should acknowledge the personal experiences of individuals who have lost a pregnancy or infant 

and empower those individuals to speak about their 

losses; 

Whereas recognizing ‘‘Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day’’ is an opportunity to increase awareness, 

promote research and greater understanding, and provide 

community to individuals who have experienced pregnancy loss or infant loss; and 

Whereas ‘‘Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day’’ 

allows the people of the United States to consider how we 

can best support families who experience, or work to prevent, pregnancy or infant loss: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of ‘‘National 

3 Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day’’; 

4 (2) understands the importance of honoring 

5 these losses and supporting affected people and their 

6 families; and 

7 (3) requests that the President issue a procla8 mation calling upon the people of the United States 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1542 IH 

1 to observe such day with appropriate programs and 

2 activities. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
### §178g. Powers of Secretary of Agriculture

In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to—

(a) make grants to States, education institutions, scientific organizations, and Indian tribes as defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93–638, 25 U.S.C. 450),1 and enter into contracts with such institutions and organizations and with industrial or engineering firms;

(b) acquire the services of biologists, agronomists, foresters, geneticists, chemists, engineers, economists, and other personnel by contract or otherwise;

(c) utilize the facilities of Federal and State scientific laboratories;

(d) establish and operate necessary facilities and plantations to carry out the continuous research, testing, development, and programing necessary to effectuate the purposes of this subchapter;

(e) acquire secret processes, technical data, inventions, patent applications, patents, licenses, land and interest in land (including water rights), facilities, and other property or rights by purchase, license, lease, or donation;

(f) assemble and maintain pertinent and current literature and publications, patents and licenses, land and interests in land;

(g) cause onsite inspections to be made of promising projects, domestic or foreign, and, in the case of projects located in the United States, cooperate and participate in their development when the Secretary determines that the purpose of this subchapter will be served thereby;

(h) foster and participate in regional, national, and international conferences relating to native latex culture or the culture of other native agricultural crops which could supply critical agricultural materials;

(i) coordinate, correlate, and publish information with a view to advancing the development of native latex technology or the technology of other native agricultural crops which could supply critical agricultural materials; and

(j) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, with State and local departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, and with interested persons, firms, institutions, and organizations.

(Pub. L. 95–592, §9, Nov. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 2532; Pub. L. 98–284, §9, May 16, 1984, 98 Stat. 183.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93–638, 25 U.S.C. 450), referred to in cl. (a), is Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, which was classified principally to subchapter II (§450 et seq.) of chapter 14 of Title 25, Indians, prior to editorial reclassification as chapter 46 (§5301 et seq.) of Title 25. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of Title 25 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1984—Cl. (h). Pub. L. 98–284, §9(1), inserted "or the culture of other native agricultural crops which could supply critical agricultural materials".

Cl. (i). Pub. L. 98–284, §9(2), inserted "or the technology of other native agricultural crops which could supply critical agricultural materials".

1 See References in Text note below.
No. 7863.

#### Conner *v.*Conner.

(Decided October 13, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Guernsey county.

*Messrs. J. H. Maelcey*and *J. A. Troette,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Fred L. Bosemond,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
#### § 269.5 Application of increase to violations.

Any increase in a civil monetary penalty under this part must apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect (*i.e.,* July 1, 2016).

[61 FR 67945, Dec. 26, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 33391, May 26, 2016]
### §1981f. Underwriting forms and standards

In the administration of this chapter, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, use underwriting forms, standards, practices, and terminology similar to the forms, standards, practices, and terminology used by lenders in the private sector.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §331F, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XVIII, §1808(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3820.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title III of Pub. L. 87–128, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 307, known as the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1921 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Regulations

Pub. L. 101–624, title XVIII, §1808(b), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3820, provided that: "The Secretary of Agriculture shall not issue final regulations providing for the use of ratios and standards for determining the degree of potential loan risk under section 331F of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act [7 U.S.C. 1981f] (as added by subsection (a) of this section), prior to the submission of the study and report on the effects of the regulations required by section 621 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 1989 note)."