alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Stephen E. Gorman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Greyhound Lines,Inc. and Subsidiaries; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 17, 2004                                                          /s/ Stephen E. Gorman   Stephen E. Gorman,  President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 470.11 Eligibility requirements. ( a ) Support under this part may be made to individuals, local non-profit organizations and institutions. State and local agencies, Indian tribes and small businesses.
( b ) The aggregate amount of support made available to any participant in the program, including affiliates, shall not exceed $50,000 during any 2-year period. This limitation applies only to support for projects and not to funds received by participants from DOE for other purposes, such as performance of services.
( c ) Projects which shall be considered for support are those which carry out the purposes of the program as expressed in § 470.10 and which are within the following categories— ( 1 ) Idea development, i.e., the development of an idea or concept or an investigative finding in areas ranging from development of new concepts of energy sources to the utilization of old procedures or systems for a new application;
( 2 ) Device development, i.e., the systematic use and practical application of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature toward the production of, or improvements in, useful products to meet specific performance requirements but exclusive of manufacturing and production engineering. The dominant characteristic is that the effort be pointed toward specific energy problem areas to develop and evaluate the feasibility and practicability of proposed solutions and determine their parameters. Device development includes studies, investigations, initial hardware development and ultimately development of hardware, systems, or other means for experimental or operational test; or
( 3 ) Demonstration, i.e., the testing of a system or technique under operation conditions to show that commercial application is technically, economically and environmentally feasible.
( d ) Support for each category in paragraph (c) of this section shall not, for a single participant in the program, including affiliates, exceed the following limits for any project— ( 1 ) For idea development, $10,000;
( 2 ) For device development, $50,000; and
( 3 ) For demonstration, $50,000.
( 4 ) A participant may receive under a subsequent program solicitation— ( i ) Additional support for a funded project or;
( ii ) Initial support for a new project, subject to the support limits set forth in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
2007-1436.

#### Niepsuj v. Niepsuj.

Summit App. No. 23625. Reported at 116 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2007-Ohio-6140, 876 N.E.2d 969. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
#### § 1128.300 Purpose of FMS Article III.

FMS Article III of the general terms and conditions specifies what costs are allowable as charges to awards and when they are allowable. It also specifies restrictions on payment of fee or profit. It thereby implements OMB guidance in §§ 200.209 and 200.309 and Subpart E of 2 CFR part 200. It also partially implements 2 CFR 200.201(b)(1) and 200.323(c), as those sections apply to the cost principles to be used in relation to subawards and contracts, respectively.
§ 52.41 Scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart sets forth the requirements and procedures applicable to Commission issuance of rules granting standard design certifications for nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility.
( b ) ( 1 ) Any person may seek a standard design certification for an essentially complete nuclear power plant design which is an evolutionary change from light water reactor designs of plants which have been licensed and in commercial operation before April 18, 1989.
( 2 ) Any person may also seek a standard design certification for a nuclear power plant design which differs significantly from the light water reactor designs described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or uses simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means to accomplish its safety functions.
§ 60.11 Deliberate misconduct. ( a ) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), subcontractor, employee of a contractor or subcontractor of any licensee or applicant for a license who knowingly provides to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor, any components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services that relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: ( 1 ) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order; or any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued by the Commission; or
( 2 ) Deliberately submit to the NRC, a licensee, an applicant, or a licensee's or applicant's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.
( b ) A person who violates paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B.
( c ) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows: ( 1 ) Would cause a licensee or applicant to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order; or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission; or
( 2 ) Constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order, or policy of a licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor.
[63 FR 1898, Jan. 13, 1998]
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacityas an officer of Archon Corporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

•                    the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

•                    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Dated: August     , 2002

 
| /s/  Paul W. Lowden                     |
|-----------------------------------------|
| Paul W. Lowden, Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
# EUR-Lex - 31980L0428 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31980L0428

**Commission Directive 80/428/EEC of 28 March 1980 amending Annex II to Council Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 102 , 19/04/1980 P. 0026 - 0026 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 12 P. 0018 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 28 P. 0122 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 12 P. 0018 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 17 P. 0241 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 17 P. 0241 *

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE of 28 March 1980 amending Annex II to Council Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables (80/428/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 76/895/EEC of 23 November 1976 relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas this Article provides that where a Member State considers that a maximum level fixed in Annex II might endanger the health of humans or of animals other than harmful organisms, that Member State may temporarily reduce that level in its own territory;

Whereas the Kingdom of the Netherlands has invoked the provisions of the aforesaid Article in respect of the maximum levels fixed for dimethoate, omethoate and fenchlorphos;

Whereas, the cases of dimethoate and omethoate require further study before the Commission can work out the measures to be taken;

Whereas, however, in the case of fenchlorphos it seems prudent, having regard to the restriction of its field of use and because of the possible presence of undesirable contaminants in preparations containing fenchlorphos and hence in its residues, to reduce without delay the maximum level laid down in Annex II to the lowest level consistent with current good agricultural practice;

Whereas it is also desirable to bring the definition of its permissible residues into line with international practice by including its principal metabolite;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

In Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC, item No 15/56 relating to "fenchlorphos", is amended to read as follows: >PIC FILE= "T0013286">

Article 2

The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1 not later than 31 March 1981 and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 March 1980.

For the Commission

Finn GUNDELACH

Vice-President (1)OJ No L 340, 9.12.1976, p. 26.
§ 1128.210 Payment requirements for States. ( a ) *Policy.* Payments to States are subject to requirements in Department of the Treasury regulations at 31 CFR part 205 that implement the Cash Management Improvement Act. Those regulations are in two subparts with distinct requirements that apply to different programs: ( 1 ) Subpart A of 31 CFR part 205 contains requirements for payments to States under “major programs,” as defined in that part. The Department of the Treasury negotiates Treasury-State agreements for major programs. Those agreements specify the appropriate timing and amounts of payments. They further specify a State's interest liability if it receives an advance payment too many days before it disburses the funds for program purposes, as well as the Federal Government's interest liability if it reimburses the State too many days after the State disburses the funds. Most DoD awards to States are not under major programs, so Subpart A applies relatively infrequently.
( 2 ) Subpart B of 31 CFR part 205 applies to all other DoD grants and cooperative agreements to States—*i.e.,* awards that are not under major programs.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* Because few DoD awards to States are under major programs, appendix B to this part includes wording for Section A of FMS Article II that specifies the requirements of Subpart B of 31 CFR part 205. A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include this wording for Section A of FMS Article II if no award using those terms and conditions will be made to a State under a program designated as a major program in the applicable Treasury-State agreement.
( 2 ) *Exception for awards under major programs.* If a DoD Component is establishing general terms and conditions that will be used for awards to States, only some of which are subject to requirements for major programs in Subpart A of 31 CFR part 205, then the DoD Component should: ( i ) Use appendix B's wording for Section A of FMS Article II in its general terms and conditions; and
( ii ) In each award subject to Subpart A of 31 CFR part 205, include award-specific terms and conditions that make payments to the recipient subject to the requirements in Subpart A of 31 CFR part 205 and the applicable Treasury-State agreement, thereby overriding the wording of Section A of FMS Article II.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 38 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Guy Clayton Barn es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ark an sa s Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on ; Dan ny Burl , ori gi na ll y su ed as B ur ls ; J oh n Bel ke n, o rig in al ly sue d a s B el ke ns ; J am es Bel l, o rig in al ly sue d a s J .W . Bel l;

The as te r Pet ty, or ig in al ly sue d a s Pe tt ie

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 2 Fil ed : Au gu st 16 , 20 12 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.In m at e Guy Cl ay to n Barn es ap pe al s f ro m th e or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 di sm is si ng hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud ic e was warra nt ed

. See Ham m et t v. Co fie ld , 68 1 F.3 d 94 5, 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m ) (s ta nd ard of

rev ie w). It i s cl ear f

ro m th e reco rd th at Barn es ’s g rie va nc e ap pe al was no t d eci de d

on th e mer i t s b u t w a s de ni ed be cau se it was un ti m el y

. Cf. id

. at 94 7 (ad op ti ng th e po si ti on “ th at th e PLRA’s ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t is sa ti sf ie d if pr i s o n of

fic ia ls de ci de a pr oc ed ur al ly fl awed gr ie va nc e on th e m eri ts ”). And whi le in m at es can no t be he ld to ex ha us ti on req ui rem en ts whe n pr is on of fic ia ls ke ep th em fro m pu rs ui ng th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, se e Mi ll er v. Nor ris , 24 7 F.3 d 73 6, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), Barn es fel l sh or t of sh owi ng th at su ch rem ed ie s were m ad e un av ai la bl e to hi m

. W e affi rm th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, an d we de ny Ba rn es ’s pe nd in g m ot io ns fo r de fau lt jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le J. Leo n Ho lm es , Uni te d S ta te s Dist ric t Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da t i o n s of th e Hon or ab le Je ro m e T. Kearn ey , Uni te d St at es Mag is t r a t e Ju dg e fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.
-2

-
#### Victor Castaner, Appellant, v. Vladimir Leventon et al., Respondents.

Judgment entered May 29, 1969, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Plaintiff failed to show any negligence on the part of defendant. The construction complained of violated no statutory provision. There was no expert testimony that the resulting condition, which provided a two and a half inch clearance beyond the platform of the elevator, was dangerous. And the fact that the elevator had been used steadily over a period in excess of 30 years without accident indicates that a reasonably prudent person would not regard it as a source of danger. Concur — McGivern, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.; Capozzoli, J. P., and Nunez, J., dissent in the following memorandum *540by Capozzoli, J. P.: It may well be that the protruding wall in the elevator shaft was a necessity when the building was constructed, but it must be remembered that, since this as the first time that plaintiff had used the elevator, he was entitled to notice of the danger posed by this protruding wall. The evidence discloses that, when the plaintiff and his companion went down to the basement, they used the interior freight elevator. When they were ready to leave they could not use the interior freight elevator and the defendants’ elevator operator directed them to use the sidewalk freight elevator. There is sufficient in the record to create a question of fact for the jury to pass upon and we believe that it was error for the court to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. *(Suszczynski*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*15 A D 2d 894.)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-14-00777-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 2012-59660

Style: Hispanic Housing and Education Information

v Chicago Title Insurance Company

Date motion filed*: September 17, 2014

Type of motion: Motion to extend time to file notice of appeal

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Notice of appeal

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 2, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: September 16, 2014 (the date the notice of appeal was filed)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

  Acting individually 

Date: October 2, 2014
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Keith R. Phillips, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wellman, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: 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 who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Date      November 9, 2007 By:  /s/ Keith R. Phillips    Chief Financial Officer