alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Bill D. Stewart, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Naturade, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based uponsuch evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005    /s/ Bill D. Stewart   Bill D. Stewart *Chief Executive Officer*
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: 2012

- NM

- 003

- AD

**Costs:** Labor per airplane ( 3 work hours x $8 5 /hour) $ 255 Parts per airplane $ + 0 Cost per airplane $ 255 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 83 Total fleet cost $ 2 1,165

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a si gnificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in A laska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# L_2021222EN.01002001.xml

| 22.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 222/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 222/20

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1010

of 21 June 2021

amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1).

| (2) | The Council does not recognise and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implementing its non-recognition policy. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council does not recognise and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implementing its non-recognition policy.

| (3) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 23 June 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 23 June 2022.

| (4) | Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 5 of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 23 June 2022.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

---

(1)  Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ L 183, 24.6.2014, p. 70).

1

---
****Consumer Product Safety Commission**Young Children and Teens Burned By Hair Curling IronsCPSC Document #5029In an average year children under 5 years of agesuffer approximately 7,700 burn injuries whichrequire hospital emergency room treatment whenthey touched hot curling irons. According to theU.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC), burns to young children representedabout 50 percent of all injuries with hair curlingirons during these years. Teenagers and adultsshould never leave a hot curling iron where ayoung child can reach it.Another hazard with hair curling irons is eye injuryto the user. The CPSC estimates that there were5,400 emergency room treated burns to the eyeper year when users accidentally touched theireyes with the hot iron. Most victims were youngwomen between 15 and 24 years old.During the past few years, curling irons have beenmade to get hotter. These hotter curling irons maycause more severe injuries when young childrentouch them and when users inadvertently touchtheir eyes and face with the curling irons.009611**
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:94cr4045–WS/MAF

BRADY LAVICK ADAMS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF

No. 300) March 27, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that Brady Lavick

Adams’s Rule 60(d)(1) motion for relief from judgment be denied. Adams has

filed objections (ECF No. 303) to the report and recommendation.

The court having reviewed the record in light of Adams’s objections, it is

ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 300) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Brady Lavick Adams’s motion (ECF No. 292) entitled “Independent

Action for Relief from Final Judgment” is DENIED.

Case 4:94-cr-04045-WS-MAF Document 306 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of May , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:94-cr-04045-WS-MAF Document 306 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 2
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- c:;...c I J./- (J ~ ~7 

~ Cttrtto(,'"( :2d\ 4. -c<= -o:L 'I .. 40 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update according(v. If 

they do not, click (or 1 ab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Air intake 0.75 $2970 0 inspection 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G) 

YES*O NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES*O NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YESD NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
  AMENDMENT
TO THE
MASTER LOAN AGREEMENT
 THIS AMENDMENT FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF AMERICA,
FLCA ADVANCED BIOENERGY, LLC, Fairmont, Nebraska
 BACKGROUND
   SECTION 7. Conditions Precedent.
 (A) Conditions to Initial Supplement.
 (vii) Evidence of Capital
  SECTION 10. Negative Covenants.
 (A) Borrowings.
 (B) Liens.




---



##### 



SECTION 10. Negative Covenants.
 (L) Payments on Subordinate Debt.
  SECTION 11. Financial Covenants.
 (B) Net Worth.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 FARM CREDIT SERVICES
    
    
    
    ADVANCED BIOENERGY, LLCOF AMERICA, FLCABy:
    
    /s/ Jerry Wilhelm
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Larry L. CernyTitle:
    
    Vice President
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Secretary




---



#####
# C_2021247EN.01000101.xml

| 25.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 21 June 2021

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2021

(2021/C 247/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2);

| — | on 15 April 2021, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2021, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 April 2021, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2021,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 was adopted on 21 June 2021.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 21 June 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 93, 17.3.2021, p. 1.

2

---
Docket No: FAA-2015-3630 Dir ID: 2014-NM-253-AD
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antonio Quiles, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 26, 1968, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a guilty plea, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of one year and four months to four years. Judgment modified, on the law and facts, by reducing the sentence to the term of one to four years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. An examination of the record reveals a clear promise on the part of the court to impose a sentence commensurate with a conviction for a class E felony. The promised sentence of one to four years was legally within the permissible limits for conviction of the class D felony to which defendant had pleaded guilty; and defendant was entitled to receive the minimum sentence promised by the court. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
DON YOUNG CONGRESSMAN FOR ALL ALASKA WASHINGTON OFFICE:

2314 RAYBURN BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 202-225-5765
ffiongress of**t~e 2£lnite~** **(~Hates ~=louse**  ofJ.i{epresentati&es**~1asl!iugtou,** gU!I. 20515 February 18, 2015
Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, EAS Division Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Schlemmer: COMMIITEEON NATURAL RESOURCES CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMIITEE ON INDIANAND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS COMMIITEEON TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMIITEE



### ·-· ' '



### -----·.

# ---**~** .

## ------------ -·- 

## -- h..l.**-~** ---- -- _- -...:::- ---- --**~- ~-**  -- --===- ._, I am pleased to write today in support ofAlaska Airlines' application to provide Essential Air Service to Adak, Alaska: DOCKET DOT-OST-2000-8556. Essential Air Service to Adak is particularly important given the community's remote location, midway down the Aleutian Chain. Alaska Airlines' B-737-400 "combi" jet aircraft are ideal for the more than three-hour, almost 1,200-mile nonstop trip from Anchorage to Adak. Alaska Airlines is also one ofthe few airlines using the state-of-the-art Required Navigation Procedure (RNP). ·This RNP technology, as well as the special training Alaska's Adak flight crews receive, should materially enhance Alaska's ability to land at Adak. These special measures have become quite important in light of the planned closure of Adak's crosswind runway. For the reasons stated above, Alaska Airlines is well suited to continue serving Adak through the Essential Air Service program.

VISIT OUR WEBSITE HTTP"J/DONYOUNG.HOUSE.GOV 4241 B STREET SUITE 203 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907-271-5978 100CUSHMAN STREET, SUITE 307 P.O. Box 73110 fAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99707 907-456-<1210 612 W.WILLOUGHBY AVENUE, SUITE B P.O. Box21247 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 907-586-7400 CALL T OLL·fREE 1-866-99(}...5979
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2389 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2389

 To require the Inspector General for Tax Administration to audit the 
                       Internal Revenue Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2013

    Mr. Meadows (for himself, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Duncan of South 
Carolina, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Salmon, and 
  Mr. Yoho) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on 
   Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, the Judiciary, 
    Natural Resources, and House Administration, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Inspector General for Tax Administration to audit the 
                       Internal Revenue Service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``IRS Verification Act''.

SEC. 2. AUDIT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
              FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) In General.--The Inspector General for Tax Administration shall 
audit the Internal Revenue Service for the period beginning January 1, 
2010, and ending on the date of the enactment of this Act. The audit 
shall be conducted in accordance with section 5(a) of the Inspector 
General Act of 1978 and shall include, but need not be limited to, a 
report on the items specified by paragraphs (1) through (13) (other 
than paragraph (10)) of such section.
    (b) Prohibition on Expending Funds for Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act Until Audit Is Submitted to Congress.--No amount 
made available for any program, project, or activity to carry out the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or any amendment made by 
such Act may be obligated or expended after the date of the enactment 
of this Act until a report of the audit required by subsection (a) is 
submitted to the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2

                   CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Larry O Donnell, CPA, P.C.
To Whom It May Concern:

We consent  to  the  reference  to  our  firm  under the  caption
Experts in the Annual Report (Form 10KSB/A) of Datascension Inc.,
and to the incorporation by reference therein of the consolidated
financial statements of the Company included in its Annual Report
and the quarterly reports filed with the Securities and  Exchange
Commission.

We consent to the use of Datascension, Inc. on Form  10-KSB/A  of
our Auditors Report,dated March 24,2005(except for Note  2, 4, 6,
7,  and  17,  November  28,  2005),  on  the  balance   sheet  of
Datascension,  Inc.  as  of  December 31, 2004  and  the  related
statement of income and accumulated deficit from  January 1, 2004
to December 31, 2004, changes in  stockholders equity,  and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Larry O Donnell, CPA
-------------------------
Larry O Donnell, CPA, P.C.

February 7, 2006
#### § 29.2259 Color symbols.

As applied to this type, color symbols are: L—light brown, F—medium brown, D—dark brown, M—mixed or variegated, G—green, GL—light green, and GD—dark green.

[45 FR 47115, July 14, 1980]
H. R. 2388 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, California, into trust 

for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF 

MIWOK INDIANS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection (b) is hereby 

taken into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of 

Miwok Indians, subject to valid existing rights and management 

agreements related to easements and rights-of-way. 

(b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust pursuant 

to subsection (a) is the approximately 40.852 acres of Federal land 

under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 

Management identified as ‘‘Conveyance boundary’’ on the map titled 

‘‘Shingle Springs Land Conveyance/Draft’’ and dated June 7, 2012, 

including improvements and appurtenances thereto. 

(c) GAMING.—Class II and class III gaming under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not be permitted at any time on the land taken into trust pursuant to subsection (a). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Ernest Abdella, Appellant, v Vera A. Foley et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages occasioned him in the purchase of defendants’ residence, alleging that defendants falsely and knowingly represented to him that the property had an abundant supply of well water and that its furnace and electrical wiring were in "tip top” condition. The trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of the evidence for failure to establish a prima facie case. As to the water supply only, that ruling was error. Plaintiff offered proof that the well’s capacity was only one and one-half gallons per minute, that defendants knew this because they had recently experienced a pump failure caused by lack of water supply and been so advised by the repairman, that nevertheless defendants represented to plaintiff that the water supply was adequate and that relying upon this representation he purchased the property. Plaintiff further offered evidence that the minimum capacity demanded by lending institutions was five gallons per minute and that the property had a value far less than the $60,000 he paid for it because of the inadequate water supply. This was sufficient to take the issue of fraud to the jury (see *Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales;*4 NY2d 403; *Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v Perla,*65 AD2d 207; *Terris v Cummiskey,*11 AD2d 259). We also find that the court abused its discretion in disallowing the testimony of damages by plaintiff’s expert, Barnowski, a real estate broker. The evidence was apparently stricken because the broker was not from Herkimer County and had not sold any real property there. He was familiar with plaintiff’s property, however, and he was qualified to give an opinion on the standard water capacity required by lending institutions and on the value of the property without an adequate water supply (see *Broward Nat. Bank of Fort Lauderdale v Starzec,*30 AD2d 603; *King v Daru,*252 App Div 767; and see, generally, 21 NY Jur, Evidence, § 453). (Appeal from order and judgment of Herkimer Supreme Court—rescission of contract.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.