alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.3



                    CERTIFICATION BY MEIR ELAZAR PURSUANT TO
                       SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14

I, Meir Elazar, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Clean Systems
Technology Group, Ltd.;


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 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 quarterly report;


4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
"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 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 and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were 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.


Date: June 6, 2004


/S/ MEIR ELAZAR
---------------
SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR



<PAGE>
NUMBER 13-08-00531-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JOSE R. CARRERAS, M. D., Appellant,

v.

JOSE VILLARREAL AND SONIA VILLARREAL, Appellees. 

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 206th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-2374-07-D. Appellant has filed an

unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the

appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed

the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 15th day of January, 2009.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42944-42945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17304]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-SFUND-2013-0462; FRL-9833-3]

Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement Under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as 
Amended, Carter Carburetor Superfund Site, St. Louis, Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as amended 
(CERCLA), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative 
settlement with ACF Industries, LLC, St. Louis, Missouri, for the 
compromise of past and projected future oversight costs concerning the 
Carter Carburetor Superfund Site in St. Louis, Missouri. The settlement 
includes a covenant not to sue with the settling party pursuant to 
Section 107(a) of CERCLA. For thirty

[[Page 42945]]

(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will 
receive written comments relating to the compromise of costs component 
of the settlement. EPA will consider all comments and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the compromise of costs is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments 
received will be available for public inspection at the EPA Region 7 
office located at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at the EPA Region 7 office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas, 
Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. 
A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from the Regional 
Hearing Clerk, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, (913) 551-
7567. Requests should reference the Carter Carburetor Superfund Site, 
EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2013-0008. Comments should be addressed to: J. 
Scott Pemberton, Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Scott Pemberton, at telephone: 
(913) 551-7276; fax number: (913) 551-7925/Attn: J. Scott Pemberton; 
email address: pemberton.scott@epa.gov.

    Dated: June 26, 2013.
Cecilia Tapia,
Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013-17304 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
SUBPART 51.1 – CONTRACTOR USE OF

GOVERNMENT SUPPLY SOURCES

(Revised October 24, 2016 through PROCLTR 2016-10)

Parent topic: PART 51 – USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS

51.100 Scope of subpart.

Government sources of supply include items in DLA inventories and on existing DLA contracts. For

DLA-managed items, this includes items coded AAC D (centrally-managed, stocked, and issued); H

(customer direct delivery, non-stocked items); and Z (numeric stockage objective (NSO) items).

51.101 Policy.

(a)(1) DEVIATION 2020-04 is a class deviation that permits contracting officers to authorize

contractors access to DLA-managed items under other than cost-reimbursement contracts. The

deviation will remain in effect until March 30, 2025. This deviation shall not apply to commodities

where contractor access to discounted or favorable pricing is prohibited by law, such as

pharmaceuticals.

51.102 Authorization to use Government supply sources.

(e)(4) Contractor access to DLA sources of supply is limited to DLA-managed national stock

numbered (NSN) or part numbered (P/N) items provided to DoD customers specifically authorized

under a DLA contract that will use a DLA supply source. The contract should specify any ceiling

quantities that may apply to an item. The rationale supporting the decision to authorize use of a DLA

source of supply will be coordinated with the managing contracting activity, documented in writing

for each NSN or P/N, signed by the contracting officer authorizing use of the DLA supply source,

approved by the CCO, and included in the contract file.

51.102-90 Special requirements.

(a) To demonstrate the benefits of permitting contractor access to Government sources of supply,

the price of each item obtained from a Government source of supply should be the Government price

charged to the contractor plus a handling fee determined fair and reasonable by the contracting

officer.

(b) The items the contractor orders must be reconciled against the items authorized in the contract.

Periodic reconciliation of the quantities that DLA sold to the contractor with the quantities of the

same items that the contractor supplied to DoD customers, or holds under surge responsibilities,

under the authorizing contract will provide the visibility needed to monitor contractor’s usage and
trigger appropriate action for improper use.

(c) The contract shall include language requiring the contractor to verify that, as the contract nears

completion, no purchases are made that would result in Government supply source items remaining

with the contractor after contract completion. Special provisions must be made for surge items.

51.103-90 Ordering from Government supply sources.

When contractor use of a DLA-managed supply source is determined to be the best value,

considering price, delivery and other factors, the contracting officer shall include contract language

to hold the contractor responsible to meet the delivery requirements whether or not Government

supply sources are used. Failure to meet the contract delivery requirements is a contractor-caused

delay.
#### § 1048.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part are issued for the protection and security of: (a) The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), its storage or related facilities, and real property subject to the jurisdiction or administration, or in the custody of DOE under part B, title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, *as amended* (42 U.S.C. 6231-6247) (EPCA); and (b) persons upon the SPR or other property subject to DOE jurisdiction under part B, title I of the EPCA.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1164 

FIKRE GETACHEW,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-497-592)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 12, 2005

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Kenneth L.

Wainstein, United States Attorney, Madelyn E. Johnson, Heather R.

Phillips, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fikre Getachew, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s

denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because the Board

affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)

(2005), the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency

determination. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir.

2004). 

Getachew challenges the immigration judge’s finding that

she failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We

will reverse this decision only if the evidence “was so compelling

that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite

fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th

Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted). We have

reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s

decision and find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion

that Getachew failed to establish past persecution or the wellfounded fear of future persecution necessary to establish

eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005) (stating

that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility

for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)

(same). 
- 3 -

We decline to address Getachew’s challenge to the

immigration judge’s credibility determination, as she failed to

raise the claim before the Board to satisfy the exhaustion

requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). See Asika v.

Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125

S. Ct. 861 (2005). Getachew does not challenge the ruling of the

immigration judge, as affirmed by the Board, on her applications

for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention

Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are abandoned. See

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.

1999). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### DORNBACH, Respondent, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Julie Dornbach against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the County Court of Kings County unanimously affirmed, with costs.
PGI 204.1 -CONTRACT EXECUTION    **Parent topic:** PGI Part 204 - ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERSPGI 204.101 Contracting officer's signature.       (1) Include the contracting officer's telephone number and, when available, e-mail/Internet address on contracts and modifications.          (2) The contracting officer may sign bilateral modifications of a letter contract before signature by the contractor.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **Section
        1350 Certification**
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly report of China Industrial Waste Management,
        Inc.
        (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Guo Xin, Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 1.  The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 May
                        15, 2008
                    /s/
                        Guo XinGuo
                        XinChief
                        Financial Officer
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has
        been
        provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
        to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1516.603-3 Limitations.       The CCO is authorized to make the determination in FAR 16.603-3.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1516.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Julius Tabe, M.D. v. Texas Inpatient Consultants, LLP

Appellate case number: 01-22-00294-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-73381

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

On November 4, 2022, appellee, Texas Inpatient Consultants, LLP filed a letter with 

the Court “requesting that the Court supplement the [c]lerk[‘]s [r]ecord with the documents 

appended to [appellee’s] brief” pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c), 

titled “supplementation.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c). We construe appellee’s letter as a 

letter motion requesting that this Court “supplement” the clerk’s record.

This Court is not responsible for the preparation or supplementation of the clerk’s 

record for an appeal. The responsibility for preparing, or supplementing, the clerk’s record 

lies with the trial court clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3 (“The trial court clerk is responsible 

for preparing, certifying and timely filing the clerk’s record.”). Further, in the event a 

party, or this Court, believes “a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk’s record,” 

that party “may by letter” request that the “trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in 

the appellate court a supplement containing” any such omitted item. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.5(c).

Accordingly, appellee’s letter motion for this Court to supplement the clerk’s record

is denied. Nothing in this order precludes any party, including appellee, from requesting 

that the trial court clerk supplement the clerk’s record in accordance with the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Amparo Guerra__________

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __November 22, 2022______
Case 2:06-cv-00749-ID-SRW Document 14 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00749-ID-SRW Document 14 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00749-ID-SRW Document 14 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 3 of 3
# Subpart 1817.2—Options

**Parent topic:**PART 1817—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

## 1817.208 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraph (c))

(c)(3) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as FAR 52.217–5 in cost reimbursement contracts when the other conditions of FAR 17.208(c) are met.
#### Mildred Sirk et al., Respondents, v. Central Lanes, Inc., Appellant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 3, 1969, in favor of plaintiffs, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The evidence indicated that snow had fallen for several days prior to the accident as well as on the morning of the accident. The temperature remained below freezing for several days prior to the accident. The female plaintiff was injured when she fell in defendant’s driveway. After she fell, she noticed that the covering of snow had been brushed away and that she was sitting atop a bumpy area of dark ice. Defendant had employed a snow plow operator who testified he had plowed the driveway on the morning of the accident. I am of the opinion that, under the circumstances, defendant could not have corrected the icy condition and thus plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie ease.
§ 205.377 Reports. In addition to the information specified below, the DOE may require additional reports as it deems necessary. ( a ) Where the DOE has authorized the temporary connection of transmission facilities, all “entities” whose transmission facilities are thus temporarily interconnected shall report the following information to the DOE within 15 days following completion of the interconnection: ( 1 ) The date the temporary interconnection was completed;
( 2 ) The location of the interconnection;
( 3 ) A description of the interconnection; and
( 4 ) A one-line electric diagram of the interconnection.
( b ) Where the DOE orders the transfer of power, the “entity” receiving such service shall report the following information to the DOE by the 10th of each month for the preceding month's activity for as long as such order shall remain in effect: ( 1 ) Amounts of capacity and/or energy received each day;
( 2 ) The name of the supplier;
( 3 ) The name of any “entity” supplying transmission services; and
( 4 ) Preliminary estimates of the associated costs.
( c ) Where the DOE has approved the installation of permanent facilities that will be used only during emergencies, any use of such facilities shall be reported to the DOE within 24 hours. Details of such usage shall be furnished as deemed appropriate by the DOE after such notification.
( d ) Any substantial change in the information provided under § 205.373 shall be promptly reported to the DOE.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control No. 1904-0066) [46 FR 39989, Aug. 6, 1981, as amended at 46 FR 63209, Dec. 31, 1981]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-8 Aspen Bark Spectral Reflectance DataThe BOREAS TE-08 team collected in-lab spectral reflectance data for aspen bark and leaves from three sites within the BOREAS SSA from 24-May-1994 to 16-Jun-1994 (IFC 1), 19-Jul-1994 to 08-Aug-1994 (IFC 2), and 30-Aug-1994 to 19-Sep-1994 (IFC 3). One to nine trees from each site were sampled during the three IFCs. Each tree was sampled in five different locations for bark spectral properties: BS, US, BR, BT, and BO. Additionally, a limited number of LV were collected. Bark samples were removed from the stem of the tree and placed in ziplock bags for transport to UNH, where they were scanned with a spectroradiometer in a controlled environment. Each sample was scanned twice: the first set of measurements was made with the bark surface moistened, and the second set was made with the bark surface air-dried for a period of 30 minutes. These data represent continuous spectra of bark reflectance. Each sample was scanned three times, rotating the sample when possible. The reported values for each sample are an average over the three scans. The data are provided in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004660Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Spencer, Shannon L.*(New Hampshire Univ. Durham, NH United States)*Rock, Barrett N.*(New Hampshire Univ. Durham, NH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberRept-2000-03136-0/VOL152NAS 1.15:209891/VOL152NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL152Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004660.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024