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



I, Bruce Hollingshead, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cascade Technologies Corp;



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 presents 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.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I are 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 (we) 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (Evaluation Date); and

(c)

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



5.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and 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.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were any significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.







/s/ Bruce Hollingshead

Date: April 11, 2008

Bruce Hollingshead, President/Director

Chief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LR/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANOLITO DILAG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74147

Agency No. A042-825-432

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Manolito Dilag, native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming his cancellation of removal

FILED

FEB 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LR/Research 2 07-74147

application waived. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency properly determined that Dilag waived his application for

cancellation of removal where he failed to file it within the time limit set by the IJ. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (authorizing the IJ to set filing deadlines and to deem

waived any application not filed by the deadline).

Dilag’s remaining contentions are unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 8

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                    JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION       PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP
<S>                                     <C>                                 <C>
Sunwide Capital Limited                 British Virgin Islands              100%(held by Registrant)

iSense Limited                          Hong Kong Special Administrative    100% (held by Registrant)
                                        Region

Silver Moon Technologies Limited        British Virgin Islands              80% (held by Registrant)

Zhongwei Medi-China.com Limited         Hong Kong Special Administrative    100% (held by Silver Moon)
                                        Region

Hainan Cihui Industrial Company Ltd.    People's Republic of China          100% (held by Registrant)

First Goods And Materials Supply        People's Republic of China          100% (held by HARC)
   and Sales Corporation                                                    (inactive)

Second Goods And Materials Supply       People's Republic of China          100% (held by HARC)
   and Sales Corporation                                                    (inactive)

Hainan Zhongwei Trading Company Ltd.    People's Republic of China          100% (95% held by
                                                                            HARC and 5% held by
                                                                            Registrant) (inactive)
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Alson Sanitronic Corp., Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal by the employer from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which determined that its dealers-salesmen were in fact its employees and accordingly made an assessment against it for unpaid contributions. The facts, somewhat different, are essentially within the framework of the legal principles enunciated in *Matter of Electrolux Corp.*(288 N. Y. 440, 446) and *Matter of Gordon*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.*(300 N. Y. 652, 654). Decision affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds,. Aulisi and Brink, J J., concur.
### SERVE D MA Y5,201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C ^:rlOrT:V•.;•;^^^ORTAiiO N

I N TH EMATTERO F SKYWES T AIRLINES , INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP10NM000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FA A 2010-031 2 

### ORDE RCONTINUIN GCAS E Counse l for

Respondent , b y lette r

date dMay 4,2010 , reminde dth e court o f hi s unavailabilit y for

hearin g i n thi s matte r

prio r t o Augus t

1 , 2010
. Wherefore , th e withi n letter s fromResponden t date dMay 4,201 0 an dApri l 19 , 2010 , havin g bee n rea dan dconsidered , i t b e an di s hereb y ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Th e Procedura l Orde r i s amende da s follows , reflectin g achang e i n discovery dates : O n o r befor e Novembe r

1 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , but

no t limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s carmo t

resolv e adiscovery disput e the y shal l submi t th e dispute t o th e undersigne dfor resolutio n i n atimel y manner ; 2
. Th e notic e o f

hearin g schedulin g thi s cas e for Jul y 27,28,2 9 an d30 , 2010 , at th e U.S
. Ta x Court , Courtroo m5223 , Wallac e F
. Bennet t Federa l Building , 12 5 S
. Stat e Street , Sal t Lak e City , U T 84138 , b e an d i s hereb y vacated ; Thi s matte r

wil l b e se t

for hearin g after

Novembe r

15 , 2010
.

jodw m U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachment(s ) - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP10NM000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building-SUit

e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Michae l L
. Dworkin , Respondent' s Counse l Michae l L
. Dworki n an dAssociate s La w Office s 46 5 Californi aStreet , Suit e 21 0 Sa n Francisco , C A 9410 4 TEL : 415-421-250 0 FAX : 415-421-256 0 Scot t R
. Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Moimtai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W
. Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATIONS*





I, James Q. Crowe, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-K of Level 3 Communications, Inc.; and





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.








Date: March 22, 2012


/s/ James Q. CroweJames Q. CroweChief Executive Officer





* Provide a separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant. See Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAKENDRICK FOBBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00310-H-1; 5:07-cv-00115-H)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lakendrick Fobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lakendrick Fobbs seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on February 2, 2010. The notice of appeal is considered to have 

been filed on April 19, 2010.*

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

 Because Fobbs failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 

of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1924.271 Processing applications.

An application for compensation for construction defects shall be submitted by the claimant to Rural Development on the designated form. The application shall be completed in its entirety. All structural defects and claims for which compensation is sought will be listed. Borrowers will be told not to incur any expenses for repairs or temporary living expenses, except for emergency situations, until funds have been allocated and the request has been approved under § 1924.273 of this subpart.
|  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |  |

  Montana

> - Nothern Cheyenne
- Missoula

----
#### § 201.28 Code designation.

The code designation used in lieu of the full name and address of the interstate shipper pursuant to § 201.27(a) shall be approved by the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) or such other person designated by the Administrator for the purpose. When used, the AMS code designation shall appear on the label in a clear and legible manner, along with the full name and address of the consignee.

[85 FR 40580, July 7, 2020]
§ 25.101 Data utilized for eligibility determinations. ( a ) *Source of data.* The data to be employed in determining eligibility pursuant to this part shall be based on the 1990 Census, and from information published by the Bureau of Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, provided, however, that for purposes of demonstrating outmigration pursuant to § 25.104(b)(2)(iii), data from the 1980 Census and interim data collected by the Bureau of Census for the 1990-1994 period may be used. The data shall be comparable in point or period of time and methodology employed.
( b ) *Use of statistics on boundaries.* The boundary of a rural area nominated for designation as an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community must coincide with the boundaries of Census tracts, or, where tracts are not defined, with block numbering areas, except: ( 1 ) Nominated areas in Alaska and Hawaii shall coincide with the boundaries of census tracts or block groups as such term is used for purposes of the 1990 Census;
( 2 ) Developable sites are not required to coincide with the boundaries of Census tracts; and
( 3 ) Nominated areas wholly within an Indian reservation are not required to adhere to census tract boundaries if sufficient credible data are available to show compliance with other requirements of this part. The requirements of § 25.103 are otherwise applicable.
[63 FR 19114, Apr. 16, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 53780, Oct. 7, 1998]
### Devany, Dennis (OST) From;, Ralph Hensel [kc2eqb@yahoo.com] SatIJrday, February 13, 2010 9:32 AM**.SeDt~** .,T**O·~"","K,** ", "Swanson, Brian (OST)

Cc: Devany, Dennis (OST) EAS**~\J:bsidy,** PBG
.. Subject:

.tferiilemen: _.

Ijust finished

### readi~e article by Andrew Schonbek in Saturday's Press-Republican and agree completely with the well writtenarticle. The only logical choice for the EAS subsidy is Cape Aic (won'trepeat all ofthe points in**Mr.Scii~bek's** article but will again say that I agree with him completely. . . " I have some ktiowl:e:dge in'these matters as I was the Airport Manager for Clinton CountXAirport (PLB) for' twenty years and Pfflttsburgh Int'l Airport (PBG) for the four years we were developing the.facility. I am now retired. I would think thaCfrom DOT's perspective, Cape Air provides the best service at the lowesl(;ost and would be the obvious choice; I hope so. With that, I'lljust say"good luck" with your efforts to manage this program that is so very.important to small communities. Thank you for your efforts, regardless ofyour decision. Ralph L. Hensel
.. Retired Airport Manager of PBG and PLB

1
#### In the Matter of Arthur A. Grossman, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 5, 1978, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and the appeal from the order entered November 14, 1978, dismissed as nonappealable, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Bloom, J. P., Markewich, Silverman and Ross, JJ.
§ 248.15 Closeout procedures. ( a ) *General.* State agencies shall submit to FNS a final closeout report for the fiscal year on a form prescribed by FNS on a date specified by FNS.
( b ) *Grant closeout procedures.* When grants to State agencies are terminated, the following procedures shall be performed in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415. ( 1 ) FNS may disqualify a State agency's participation under the FMNP, in whole or in part, or take such remedies as may be appropriate, whenever FNS determines that the State agency failed to comply with the conditions prescribed in this part, in its Federal-State Agreement, or in FNS guidelines and instructions. FNS will promptly notify the State agency in writing of the disqualification together with the effective date.
( 2 ) FNS may disqualify the State agency or restrict its participation in the FMNP when both parties agree that continuation under the FMNP would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds.
( 3 ) Upon termination of a grant, the affected agency shall not incur new obligations after the effective date of the disqualification, and shall cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible. FNS will allow full credit to the State agency for the Federal share of the noncancellable obligations properly incurred by the State agency prior to disqualification, and the State agency shall do the same for farmers/farmers' markets.
( 4 ) A grant closeout shall not affect the retention period for, or Federal rights of access to, FMNP records as specified in § 248.24(b) and (c). The closeout of a grant does not affect the responsibilities of the State agency regarding property or with respect to any FMNP income for which the State agency is still accountable.
( 5 ) A final audit is not a required part of the grant closeout and should not be needed unless there are problems with the grant that require attention. If FNS considers a final audit to be necessary, it shall so inform OIG. OIG will be responsible for ensuring that necessary final audits are performed and for any necessary coordination with other Federal cognizant audit agencies or State or local auditors. Audits performed in accordance with § 248.18 may serve as final audits providing such audits meet the needs of requesting agencies. If the grant is closed out without an audit, FNS reserves the right to disallow and recover an appropriate amount after fully considering any recommended disallowances resulting from an audit which may be conducted later.
[59 FR 11517, Mar. 11, 1994, as amended at 81 FR 66496, Sept. 28, 2016]
§ 1755.28 Notice and publication of listed contract forms. ( a ) *Notice.* Upon initially entering a loan agreement with RUS, borrowers will be provided with all listed contract forms. Thereafter, new or revised listed contract forms promulgated by RUS, including RUS approved exceptions and alternatives, will be sent by regular or electronic mail to the borrower's address as identified in its loan agreement with RUS.
( b ) *Availability.* Listed contract forms are published by RUS. Interested parties may obtain the forms from the Rural Utilities Service, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1522, Washington DC 20250-1522, telephone number (202) 720-8674. The list of contract forms can be found in § 1755.30(c).
[64 FR 6500, Feb. 10, 1999]
CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy E. Vance, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Data Call Technologies,Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer's internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recent fiscalquarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer'sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2009

/s/ Timothy E. VanceCEO
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1944.534 [Reserved]
#### § 1822.269 Security.

Each loan will be secured by a mortgage on the property purchased or improved with the loan, and a security interest in the funds held by the corporation in trust for the Government, in accordance with the provisions of the required Loan Resolution.
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-temp-institution.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-temp-institution.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.