alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND15d-14(a)

 

I,Barry M. Portnoy, certify that:

 
| 1.     |   | I have reviewed this  Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hospitality  Properties Trust;                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| 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;  and |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| 3.     |   | Based  on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information  included in this 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 report.                         |

 
| Date:  June 16, 2008 |   |   /s/  Barry M. Portnoy |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                      |   | Barry  M. Portnoy                 |
|                      |   | Managing  Trustee                 |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

EARNEST DUKES,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 218 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10279 Conference Calendar

JERRY RICKY HANNAH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NFN MARTIN, Officer, Price Daniel Unit; NFN HOOSER, Officer, Price Daniel Unit;TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICEINSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Price Daniel Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CV-22-C

-------------------- June 14, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jerry Ricky Hannah, Texas prisoner number 897277, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. He contends that the defendants lost his tennis shoes and that his due process rights were violated when he was not given fair compensation for the shoes. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hannah’s claim for the deprivation of his personal property was frivolous. SeeNo. 01-10279 -2- Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Harper v. Showers , 174 F.3d 716, 718 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1999). Texas has an adequate postdeprivation remedy for confiscation of prisoner property. Cathey v. Guenther , 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995). Hannah’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal as frivolous by the district court each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Hannah therefore has two “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Hannah that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
[No. 39524-6-I.

Division One.

December 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Donald G. Johnson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-04922-9, Linda Lau, J., entered October 24, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1440 Magnesium stearate. ( a ) Magnesium stearate (Mg(C17H34COO)2, CAS Reg. No. 557-04-0) is the magnesium salt of stearic acid. It is produced as a white precipitate by the addition of an aqueous solution of magnesium chloride to an aqueous solution of sodium stearate derived from stearic acid that is obtained from edible sources and that conforms to the requirements of § 172.860(b)(2) of this chapter.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 182, which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used as a lubricant and release agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(18) of this chapter; a nutrient supplement as defined in § 170.3(o)(20) of this chapter; and a processing aid as defined in § 170.3(o)(24) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[50 FR 13560, Apr. 5, 1985]
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2





                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form F-3 of Nur Macroprinters Ltd. and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated February 16, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Nur Macroprinters Ltd. included in its Annual Report
(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.



Tel Aviv, Israel
April 30, 2000

                                               Yours truly,

                                         /s/ KOST, FORER and GABBAY
                                           KOST, FORER and GABBAY
                                   A member of Ernst & Young International
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 740 

Expressing support for the designation of March 3, 2018, as World Hearing 

Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of California) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of March 3, 2018, 

as World Hearing Day. 

Whereas the sense of hearing plays a critical role in communication and personal relationships, overall health outcomes, psychological well-being, and safety; 

Whereas hearing loss has been tied to impaired communication, learning and academic delays, economic loss, falls, 

depression, isolation, and cognitive decline, and can be a 

symptom of an underlying treatable medical condition, including infections, tumors, otosclerosis, ototoxicity, and 

Me ́nie`re’s disease; 

Whereas noise-induced hearing loss is a preventable and significant, often unrecognized, health problem among 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 740 IH 

United States adults, and is a growing concern with adolescents; 

Whereas a hearing healthcare team may include otolaryngologists, audiologists, and hearing aid specialists; 

Whereas a comprehensive hearing evaluation includes the 

thorough assessment, rehabilitation through use of hearing aids and other devices, and counseling by educated 

and trained professionals; 

Whereas World Hearing Day, founded by the World Health 

Organization, is observed annually on March 3 to raise 

awareness on how to prevent deafness and hearing loss 

and promote ear and hearing care across the world; and 

Whereas the theme of World Hearing Day 2018 is ‘‘Hearing 

the Future’’ and focuses on hearing loss prevention 

awareness and promoting access for individuals with 

hearing loss to necessary rehabilitation services and the 

communication tools they require: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of World Hearing 

3 Day; 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of the prevention 

5 of hearing loss through self-protective behaviors; and 

6 (3) recognizes the importance of patient access 

7 to early detection and intervention by healthcare 

8 professionals in the process of identification, treat9 ment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T06:37:40-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000, as amended, (Pub. L. 110-343), the 
Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource 
Advisory Committee will conduct a business meeting. The meeting is open 
to the public.

DATES: Thursday, March 18, 2010, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Idaho Counties Risk Management Program Building, 3100 South 
Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will include review and 
approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Olson, Designated Federal 
Official, at (208) 347-0322 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#34505b58475b5a04037452471a5251501a4147"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ffbf0f3ecf0f1afa8dff9ecb1f9fafbb1eaec">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 19, 2010.
Suzanne C. Rainfille,
Forest Supervisor, Payette National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2010-3983 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
LOG OF MEETING

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Juvenile Products Subcommittee Meeting s

DATE OF MEETING: June 27 , 2013

PLACE OF MEETING: ASTM Headquarters

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards

, Jon athan Midgett, Suad

Wanna

- Nakamu ra, Rick McCallion, etc.

NON

- COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Contact ASTM for attendee list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

Hand Held Carriers

–

Two ballot items (restraints warning label and hook specs) have been approved but not

yet included in the standard for publication. These items will be processed and a new

version will be approved on July 1 st , publication expected by the end of July.

Auto

- locking Test Task Group Report:

A draft ballot item to revise this test procedure was shared with the sub

- committee. The

ballot item was drafted by the task group as a result of the testing performed in April at

SGS Laboratories. This ballot item is expected be sent out to ballot in the next few days.

The sub

- committee discussed various a spects of the ballot item, suggested editorial edits

were made.

Inclined Sleep Products

The following task groups provided reports. And the draft standard was edited in

response to some of the reports. Many of the task groups are not yet done with the work

needed to finalize the draft standard.

1) Freestanding newborn inclined sleep product

2) Unintentionally folding requirement

3) Side height for newborn

4) Newborn se at back length test method

5) Scope

6) Definitions

7) WarningsBassinets

–

An announcement was made that two ballot items will be sent out next week. These items

were not reviewed or discussed at the meeting.

CPSC staff provided a r ulemaking update, outlining the staff recommendations that were

included in the final rulemaking briefing package.

Stroller Meeting

–

Pinch Point 2D strollers task group provided a report. Discussion included refinements

and edits to the last draft.

Effective date differences between the NPR and JPMA was raised. The possibility of

aligning the dates was discussed and will be pursued by JPMA.

Rockers

–

The draft forward stability test was reviewed and changes were suggested and discussed.

A c hange to scope

, to clarify multi

- mode products , was discussed. It was decided to add

wording similar to what was added for the inclined sleeper standard.

Other recommended changes in the standard were reviewed. The se changes were not

included in the agenda handout.
[No. 15544-7-III.

Division Three.

December 2, 1997.]

#### Matthew Woodson, et al., *Respondents,*v. Okanogan River Ranches Homeowners Ass’n, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, No. 94-2-00318-8, Jack Burchard, J., entered February 6, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 3
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 3
EPA SANITIZE Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR END DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,593
<INVENTORY>                                     23,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,228
<PP&E>                                           9,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,042
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,618
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,006
<SALES>                                        121,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,924
<CGS>                                           64,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (25)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,593
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,191
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,244
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,947
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (454)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,493
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57


</TABLE>
38883.

#### DENMON v. RICH'S, INC.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

This is the third appearance of this litigation before this court. On its last previous appearance. this court held that the trial court did not err in over*819ruling the general demurrer to count 2 of the petition. See *Rich’s Inc. v. Denmon,*101 Ga. App. 600 (114 S. E. 2d 462), which contains a sufficient statement of the allegations of the petition. Upon the trial of the case, the only evidence relied upon to show notice to the defendant of the presence of the particular marble upon which the plaintiff stepped and fell was evidence of a witness that some four hours prior to the occurrence he had picked up two marbles from the floor of the defendant’s store and delivered the same to a sales clerk of the defendant. These marbles were found some 100 feet or more from the point where the plaintiff fell. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that his evidence sufficiently established that the person to whom the witness handed the marbles was an agent, servant or employee of the defendant, such evidence was wholly insufficient to show notice to the defendant of the presence of the particular marble upon which the plaintiff stepped some 100 feet away and four hours later. Notice of one defect or of one fact is not notice of another wholly unconnected defect or fact, even though the two may be similar in nature. *Jackson v. Thom,*80 Ga. App. 673 (67 S. E. 2d 234); *Ween v. Saul,*88 Ga. App. 299 (76 S. E. 2d 525). In order to find that the defendant had notice of the presence of the particular marble at the time and place of the plaintiff’s injury, the jury would have to infer that the marble was dropped upon the floor at the same time and under the same circumstances as the marbles found four hours earlier and over 100 feet away by the witness. There was no evidence that any other marbles were found upon the floor of the defendant’s store. Such an inference is entirely too remote and insufficient on which to base the further inference that the defendant had notice of the presence of the particular marble. Under the circumstances of this case, no¡tice to the defendant actual or constructive, was essential to charge the defendant with negligence for failure to remove the marble from the floor. *Jones v. West End Theatre Co.,*94 Ga. App. 299 (94 S. E. 2d 135); *Lupion v. Blass,*101 Ga. App. 264 (113 S. E. 2d 413). The plaintiff’s evidence not only failed to show these essential facts, but the defendant’s evidence went further and affirmatively showed that it did not have the requisite notice. It follows that the trial court did not err in directing the verdict for the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and Eherhardt, JJ., concur.*

*820Decided June 6, 1961.

*Robert L. Mitchell, Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hancock, Charles L. Weltner,*contra.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 2, 2015

s0630

Order 

Clerk

July 2, 2015

150957

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a BANK

OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Certificate

Holders of CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACKED

CERTIFICATES SERIES 2003-3,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 150957

COA: 316521

Wayne CC: 11-008424-CH

JAAFAR K. JAAFAR and BADIA JAAFAR,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 23, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

An offer “is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to 

justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will 

conclude it.” See Eerdmans v Maki, 226 Mich App 360, 364 (1997). Here, and contrary 

to the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the January 20, 2012 e-mail from plaintiff’s 

counsel to defendants’ counsel did not constitute an offer to settle this case. Instead, this 

e-mail inquired whether defendants would present an offer at some point in the future, 

which they did, through a subsequent e-mail by their counsel. Defendants’ counsel 

confirmed that this subsequent e-mail was an offer by later inquiring whether plaintiff 

had accepted their offer. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated by the Court of 

Appeals’ dissenting opinion, no enforceable settlement agreement existed to bind the 

parties in this case. We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
§ 203.34 Policies and procedures; administrative systems. Each manufacturer or authorized distributor of record that distributes drug samples shall establish, maintain, and adhere to written policies and procedures describing its administrative systems for the following: ( a ) Distributing drug samples by mail or common carrier, including methodology for reconciliation of requests and receipts;
( b ) Distributing drug samples by means other than mail or common carrier including the methodology for: ( 1 ) Reconciling requests and receipts, identifying patterns of nonresponse, and the manufacturer's or distributor's response when such patterns are found;
( 2 ) Conducting the annual physical inventory and preparation of the reconciliation report;
( 3 ) Implementing a sample distribution security and audit system, including conducting random and for-cause audits of sales representatives by personnel independent of the sales force; and
( 4 ) Storage of drug samples by representatives;
( c ) Identifying any significant loss of drug samples and notifying FDA of the loss; and
( d ) Monitoring any loss or theft of drug samples.
[No. 38604-2-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Olen N. Rodriguez, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-8-01631-6, Michael Spearman, J., entered May 6, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.