alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity GroupHolding, Inc., certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Affinity Group Holding, Inc.;

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

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures, (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:

(a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

(c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006 |   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                  |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
(December 6, 1979)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Gaggi et al., Defendants, and Mayra Cruz Santiago, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 22, 1979, which, *inter alia,*adjudicated appellant to be a material witness and placed her in the custody of the Sheriff of the City of New York. Order aifirmed, without costs or disbursements. In affirming, we are mindful of the representation by the District Attorney, upon argument of the appeal, that he is ready for an immediate trial. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### Selma B. Mower, Respondent, v. Jack H. Mower, Appellant.

Orders entered on May 15, 1968, and October 3, 1968, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. [32 A D 2d 615,] Concur—Eager, J. P., MeGivern, Markewich and McNally, JJ.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 14-2182 CARDIGAN MOUNTAIN SCHOOL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee. **ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court, issued on May 27, 2015, is amended as follows: On page 13, line 9, replace "44))" with "44)".
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1938 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that members of the 

Armed Forces serving on active duty who are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury have access to 

hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2013 

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who 

are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or 

traumatic brain injury have access to hyperbaric oxygen 

therapy, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF HYPERBARIC OXYGEN THERAPY 

4 FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED 

5 SERVICES. 

6 (a) HBOT TREATMENT.— 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1938 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 55 of title 10, 

2 United States Code, is amended by inserting after 

3 section 1074m the following new section: 

4 ‘‘§ 1074n. Provision of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for 

5 certain members 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall furnish 

7 hyperbaric oxygen therapy to a covered member if such 

8 therapy is prescribed by a physician to treat post-trau9 matic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. 

10 ‘‘(b) USE OF PRIVATE FACILITIES.—The Secretary 

11 may carry out subsection (a) by furnishing hyperbaric oxy12 gen therapy at private facilities in accordance with section 

13 1074(c) of this title. 

14 ‘‘(c) COVERED MEMBER DEFINED.—In this section, 

15 the term ‘covered member’ means a member of the armed 

16 forces who is— 

17 ‘‘(1) entitled to medical care under section 1074 

18 of this title; and 

19 ‘‘(2) diagnosed with post-traumatic stress dis20 order or traumatic brain injury.’’. 

21 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec22 tions at the beginning of such chapter is amended 

23 by inserting after the item relating to section 1074m 

24 the following new item: 

‘‘1074n. Provision of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for certain members.’’. 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1938 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall take effect 90 days after the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EPA Correspondence No. 10-07A 

August 11, 2010 

Ms. Anne Overstreet 

Special Review and Reregistration Division (SRRD), 7504P 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Room S-4900, One Potomac Yard 

2777 South Crystal Drive 

Arlington, Virginia 22202-4501 

Re: TEMIK® brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide (EPA Reg. No. 264-330): Request to Voluntarily 

Cancel Use on Citrus and Potato 

Dear Ms. Overstreet: 

In accordance with Section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), Bayer CropScience requests to amend the FIRFA Section 3 pesticide registration for 

TEMIK® brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide (EPA Reg. No. 264-330) to voluntarily cancel uses on 

citrus and potato. 

The voluntary cancellation of the uses cited above are dependent upon EPA accepting and 

stamping the enclosed amended label and is contingent upon finalization of the current 

discussions between EPA and Bayer CropScience on revisions to EPA Reg. No. 264-330. 

If this proposal is accepted, Bayer CropScience additionally requests that EPA waive the 180-

day Federal Register comment period pursuant to FIFRA Section 6(f)(1). 

Please phone me at 919-549-2870 or email me at larry.hodges@bayercropscience.com if you 

have any questions regarding this request. 

Sincerely, 

Larry R. Hodges, Ph.D. 

Registration Manager, 

Insecticides and Seed Treatments 

Bayer CropScience 

2 T.W. Alexander Drive 

P. O. Box 12014 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Tel: 919 549-2000
airTran . ... I II W ... v s 

August 19,2010 

u.s Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 t h Street, SW, Room PL-400 

Washington, D.C. 20591 -0001 

Re. Use of AT A Exemption 5318 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

AirTran Airways respectfully requests your consideration in addressing the following 

concem. 

AirTran currently has been authorized to exercise exemption number 8802 A, FAR 

91.203 (a) and (b), which allows for temporary aircraft operation without airworthiness 

and registration certi ficates. Air Transport Association (AT A) is currently utilizing 

exemption 53 J 8 J to address the same exemption. As a member of AT A, AirTran has 

previously revised its ADOS Operations Specifications to reflect the exemption number 

and date of expiration posted on the A TA website for matching exemption numbers. 

Since AirTran alread y has authorization for the FAR 91 .203 exemption, can AirTran 

revise its Operations Specifications to reflect A TA exemption number 5318 and the 

associated date ofexpiration? 

r have posed this question to our Certificate Management Office and was asked to contact 

your office for an official response. Your timely response is most appreciated. 

(fyou have any questions, or need further infonll alion, please feel free to coniaci me al 

(678) 254-6502. 

This letter lind cncJo~ures (oll'aiu contklcnlial commercial information. AccordillglY.lhey a re eumpl from public disdosun· 

und .. r the provisions of the ."recdom of Informal ion Actioo (FOIA). 5 l l_".C. sectiuns 552 et SC'j. and $ection 7.69 of the 

regula tions of the Department ofTr.lnsportation. 49 CfR 7.69. 

Sincerely. 

Jeff dowanic 

Director. Quality 

Teclmirol Operations Ceuter flartsjieldjac/eson Atlanta /ntemtltiOflal Airport 1340 North Outer Loop Road Atlanta, GA 30337 

I
#### Amelia G. Montgomery, appellee, v. The Wabash Railway Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,291.

Opinion filed January 24, 1929.

Rehearing denied April 4, 1929.

LeForgee, Black *&*Samuels, for appellant; N. S. Brown, of counsel. Redmon *&*Redmon, for appellee; Russell E. Reno, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.704-1951.705 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.215 Grants. No monitoring action by Rural Development is required after grant closeout. Grant closeout is when all required work is completed, administrative actions relating to the completion of work and expenditure of funds have been accomplished, and Rural Development accepts final expenditure information. However, grantees remain responsible in accordance with the terms of the grant for property acquired with grant funds. ( a ) *Applicability of requirements.* Servicing actions relating to Rural Development or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 grants are governed by the provisions of this subpart, the terms of the Grant Agreement and, if applicable, the provisions of 2 CFR parts 200, 400, 415, 417, 418, and 421. ( 1 ) Servicing actions will be carried out in accordance with the terms of the “Association Water or Sewer System Grant Agreement,” and RUS Bulletin 1780-12, “Water and Waste Grant Agreement” (available from any USDA/Rural Development office or the Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1500). Grant agreements with a revision date on or after January 29, 1979, require that the grantee request disposition instructions from the Agency before disposing of property which is no longer needed for original grant purposes.
( 2 ) When facilities financed in part by Rural Development grants are transferred or sold, repayment of all or a portion of the grant is not required if the facility will be used for the same purposes and the new owner provides a written agreement to abide by the terms of the grant agreement.
( b ) *Authorities.* Subject to the requirements of § 1951.215(a), authority to approve servicing actions is as follows: ( 1 ) For water and waste disposal grants, the State Director is authorized to approve any servicing actions needed, except that prior approval of the Administrator is required when property acquired with grant funds is disposed of in accordance with §§ 1951.226, 1951.230, or 1951.232 of this subpart and the buyer or transferee refuses to assume all terms of the grant agreement.
( 2 ) All other grants will be serviced in accordance with the Grant Agreement and this subpart. Prior approval of the Administrator is required except for actions covered in the preceding paragraph.
[55 FR 4399, Feb. 8, 1990, as amended at 63 FR 16089, Apr. 2, 1998; 79 FR 76012, Dec. 19, 2014]
§ 1717.157 Requests for transitional assistance. ( a ) If the merger requires RUS approval, the borrower should, where possible, indicate that it desires transitional assistance at the time it requests approval of the merger. The formal request for transitional assistance must be received by RUS as specified in §§ 1717.155 and 171.156. Documents listed in this section may be combined with the documents required by §§ 1717.152 and/or 1717.160 where appropriate. If the request for transitional assistance is submitted at the same time as a loan application, documents listed in this section may be combined with the loan application documents where appropriate. See 7 CFR part 1710, subpart I. A request for transitional assistance must include: ( 1 ) Transmittal letter(s) formally listing the types of transitional assistance requested. If the request is submitted before the effective date, a transmittal letter must be signed by the manager of each party to the transaction. If the request is submitted on or after the effective date, a transmittal letter must be signed by the manager of the successor. Transmittal letter(s) must be signed originals on corporate letterhead stationery;
( 2 ) Board resolution(s). If the request is submitted before the effective date, a separate board resolution must be submitted from each entity involved in the merger. If the request is submitted on or after the effective date, a board resolution from the successor must be submitted. Each board resolution must be a certified original;
( 3 ) A merger plan, financial forecasts, and any available studies such as net present value analyses showing the anticipated costs and benefits of the merger and likely timeframes for the merger. The merger plan must clearly identify those benefits that cannot be achieved without a merger, and those benefits that can be achieved through other means;
( 4 ) If the transitional assistance requires RUS approval, the type and extent of the mitigation that the transitional assistance is expected to provide; and
( 5 ) Other information that may be relevant.
( b ) Borrowers are responsible for ensuring that requests for transitional assistance are complete and sound in form and substance when they are submitted to RUS. After submitting a request, borrowers shall promptly notify RUS of any changes or events that materially affect the request or any information in the request.
( c ) In considering whether to approve requests for transitional assistance, RUS will evaluate the costs and benefits of the merger; the type and extent of the likely transitional stress; whether the transitional assistance requested is likely to materially mitigate such stress; and the likely impacts on electric rates and on the security of RUS loans. Review factors applicable to each type of transitional assistance are set forth in §§ 1717.154-1717.156.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: National Latinx AIDS Awareness Day Toolkit      

# Resource: National Latinx AIDS Awareness Day Toolkit

This webpage contains messages and images for National Latinx AIDS Awareness Day (NLAAD) social media posts to raise awareness of HIV among Hispanic/Latino people, encourage them to get tested, and know their prevention options. Posts and campaign materials are available in English and Spanish.**Learn more.**
#### In the Matter of Richard Hodgson, Appellant, v Robert J. McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 3, 1979, dismissing the petition challenging respondent’s determination which dismissed petitioner from the New York City Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On June 30, 1976, petitioner, a police officer, entered a plea of guilty to the crime of official misconduct (Penal Law, § 195.00), a class A misdemeanor, for accepting $350 from an undercover police officer, and was subsequently sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment. On October 21, 1976, the police commissioner, citing subdivision a of section 434a-14.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York as his authority, dismissed petitioner from the police department without a hearing. No mention was made of section 30 (subd 1, par e) of the Public Officers Law which provides for an automatic forfeiture of office upon a public officer’s conviction of a felony, or a crime involving a violation of his oath of office. Police officers are public officers. *(Cateline v McClellan,*282 NY 166, 170, and cases cited therein.) The underlying crime, although not a felony, involved a violation of petitioner’s oath of office. (See *Sroka v Municipal Civ. Serv. Comm, of City of Buffalo,*57 AD2d 1064.) Because of the strong public policy in favor of vacating the office of a public officer convicted of a violation of his oath of office (see *Matter of Toro v Malcolm,*44 NY2d 146, 150), forfeiture was not waived by respondent’s failure to invoke the statute at the time of petitioner’s dismissal or to assert it in the original CPLR article 78 proceeding, as a result of which the matter was remanded for a hearing on penalty. Because the office was automatically vacated no hearing was required. Even were the Public Officers Law inapplicable, we would agree with Special Term that the penalty of dismissal was proper, and hardly disproportionate to the offense or shocking to one’s sense of fairness. *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 233, and cases cited therein.) Petitioner’s other contention is without merit. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Silverman, JJ.
#### In the Matter of F & C Holding Corp., Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of the New York 'State Liquor Authority suspending petitioner’s liquor license for a period of thirty days unanimously annulled on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petition granted. Petitioner was found guilty of violating subdivision 6 of section 106, of the Alcoholic Beverage 'Control Law (suffering or permitting the premises to become disorderly). In the single incident of alleged solicitation by a homosexual the officer testified they were standing at the door at the time and the offer was made “in a very low voice * * * subdued voice.” There is no evidence that any employee of the licensee overheard or was aware of the occurrence. According to the officer there were 75 to 80 people in the premises and the juke box was *807playing. Nor is there any evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the hearing officer that the warning given to patrons was to hinder police action and not to prevent disorder. In fact the officer, while'talking to another and different party, was asked did he know such person and when the officer answered “ no ”, he was admonished not to speak to him, *“*he may he a cop; we don’t want any trouble here.” This was a warning similar to that previously given to the person who allegedly solicited the officer while they were engaged in casual conversation. While such person was known to the bartender, this officer was a stranger to him. The record indicates these premises have been operating for forty years without any adverse history and no overt acts or other conduct of a disorderly nature were observed on this occasion beyond that testified to. It is concluded the determination is not supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Cat & Fiddle,*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*24 A D 2d 753). Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.
#### § 1775.37 Allocation of funds.

At least 10 percent of available funds will be used for funding single State projects based on the priority criteria.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.690 Exception authority.

The Under Secretary for Rural Development (or designee) may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirements of this subpart not required by the authorizing statute if the Administrator finds that application of such requirement would adversely affect the interest of the Government, or adversely affect the accomplishment of the purposes of the HPG program, or result in undue hardship by applying the requirement. The Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for Housing may exercise this exception authority at the request of the State Director. The request must be supported by information demonstrating the adverse impact, citing the particular requirement involved, recommending proper alternative course(s) of action, and outlining how the adverse impact could be mitigated. Exception to any requirement may also be initiated by the Assistant Administrator for Housing.