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

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Richard E. Gaetz, certify that: 

1. I havereviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vitran Corporation Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make 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; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: October 6, 2011
§ 522.1125 Hemoglobin glutamer-200 (bovine). ( a ) *Specifications.* Each 125 milliliter bag contains 13 grams per deciliter of polymerized hemoglobin of bovine origin in modified Lactated Ringer's Solution. It is a sterile, clear, dark purple solution.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 063075 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* One-time dose of 10 to 30 milliliters per kilogram of body weight administered intravenously at a rate of up to 10 milliliters per kilogram per hour.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of anemia in dogs by increasing systemic oxygen content (plasma hemoglobin concentration) and improving the clinical signs associated with anemia, regardless of the cause of anemia (hemolysis, blood loss, or ineffective erythropoiesis).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[63 FR 11598, Mar. 10, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 20732, Apr. 18, 2000; 79 FR 16189, Mar. 25, 2014]
§ 607.30 Updating blood product listing information. ( a ) After submission of the initial blood product listing information, every person who is required to list blood products under § 607.20 must submit electronically through the Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing system, or any future superseding electronic system, at a minimum once in June and December of every year, the following information: ( 1 ) A list of each blood product introduced by the registrant for commercial distribution which has not been included in any list previously submitted. All of the information required by § 607.25(b) shall be provided for each such blood product.
( 2 ) A list of each blood product formerly listed pursuant to § 607.25(b) for which commercial distribution has been discontinued, including for each blood product so listed the identity by established name and proprietary name, and date of discontinuance. It is requested but not required that the reason for discontinuance of distribution be included with this information.
( 3 ) A list of each blood product for which a notice of discontinuance was submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section and for which commercial distribution has been resumed, including for each blood product so listed the identity by established name as defined in section 502(e) of the act and by any proprietary name, the date of resumption, and any other information required by § 607.25(b) not previously submitted.
( 4 ) Any material change in any information previously submitted.
( b ) When no changes have occurred since the previously submitted list, no listing information is required.
[40 FR 52788, Nov. 12, 1975, as amended at 81 FR 60222, Aug. 31, 2016]
§ 524.1580a Nitrofurazone ointment. ( a ) *Specifications.* The drug contains 0.2 percent nitrofurazone in a water-soluble base.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter. ( 1 ) See Nos. 054925, 058005, 059051, 061133, and 069043 for use on dogs, cats, or horses.
( 2 ) See No. 017135 for use on dogs and horses.
( 3 ) See Nos. 017153 and 058829 for use on horses.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Apply directly on the lesion with a spatula or first place on a piece of gauze. The preparation should remain on the lesion for at least 24 hours. Use of a bandage is optional.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For prevention or treatment of surface bacterial infections of wounds, burns, and cutaneous ulcers of dogs, cats, or horses.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* For use only on dogs, cats, and horses. Do not use on horses intended for human consumption. Federal law prohibits the use of this product in food-producing animals. In case of deep or puncture wounds or serious burns, use only as recommended by veterinarian. If redness, irritation, or swelling persists or increases, discontinue use; consult veterinarian.
[46 FR 43402, June 27, 1980. Redesignated at 79 FR 10971, Feb. 27, 2014] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting § 524.1580a, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

                              MACKIE DESIGNS INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Year ended December 31,
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------
                                                                    1996             1995             1994
                                                                 -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                                              <C>              <C>              <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding                        12,881,038       11,038,356       10,000,000

Net effect of dilutive stock equivalents based on the
  treasury stock method using greater of average or ending
  market price                                                       770,875          990,934          948,526
Sale of common stock from the initial public offering
  assumed to repay amounts due to pre-IPO shareholders for
  undistributed S Corporation earnings                                    -           715,175        1,139,907
                                                                 -----------      -----------      -----------
Total weighted shares outstanding                                 13,651,913       12,744,465       12,088,433
                                                                 ===========      ===========      ===========
Net income                                                       $ 7,420,659
                                                                 ===========

Net income per share                                             $      0.54
                                                                 ===========


Pro forma data:
   Pro forma net income                                                           $ 9,026,345     $  7,555,508
                                                                                  ===========      ===========
   Pro forma net income per share                                                 $      0.71      $      0.63
                                                                                  ===========      ===========
</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00007-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.S., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court

of Tarrant County (233-585880-15)

May 6, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
38962.

#### McDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. BENEFIELD.

Decided September 12, 1961.

*369
      *Lokey*,cfc *Bowden, Hamilton Lokey, Glenn Frick,*for plaintiff in error.

*Calhoun & Calhoun, Walter W. Calhoun, Clarence H. Calhoun, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The court erred in overruling the *370special demurrer to subparagraph (a) of paragraph 23 of the petition. The petition shows that all work on the hangar had not been completed and does not show that the plaintiff did not know of the unfinished floor. It would seem that the defendant would have met the requirement of ordinary care as to subcontractors on the premises by giving some kind of notice that there was an unfinished section in the concrete floor. The defendant would not be required to put a guard around the incomplete section, of the presence of which the plaintiff presumably knew, to prevent heavy machinery or vehicles from running into it. Such a requirement would entail a larger expense than the utility of such a precaution would justify, especially as to workmen on the premises.

The court erred in overruling the special demurrer to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 23 of the petition for the reason that as stated in the foregoing division of this opinion the defendant would have met the requirements of ordinary care as to workmen on the premises by giving notice of the incomplete section of the floor. Since under a proper construction of the petition against the pleader the plaintiff had notice of the incompleted section of the floor, the defendant was under no duty to cover the incomplete section to protect a workman with notice of the danger.

The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition and the special demurrers to subparagraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 23 of the petition for the reason that it is nowhere alleged in the petition that the slant or incline in the floor was the proximate cause or a contributing proximate cause of the rolling of the scaffold. In the absence of this essential allegation the petition is construed as alleging that the cause of the scaffold’s rolling was one with which the defendant is not chargeable. *George v. Continental Wrecking Corp.,*101 Ga. App. 538, 541 (114 SE2d 383). The court erred in overruling the special demurrer to subparagraph “g” of paragraph 23 of the petition because this specification of negligence is too general to put the defendant on notice of the negligence sought to be alleged.

The court erred in overruling the general demurrer and the *371special demurrers to the subparagraphs of paragraph 23 of the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 570

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

#### § 570.19 Pesticide chemicals in processed foods.

When pesticide chemical residues occur in processed foods due to the use of raw agricultural commodities that bore or contained a pesticide chemical in conformity with an exemption granted or a tolerance prescribed under section 408 of the act, the processed food will not be regarded as adulterated so long as good manufacturing practice has been followed in removing any residue from the raw agricultural commodity in the processing (such as by peeling or washing) and so long as the concentration of the residue in the processed food when ready to eat is not greater than the tolerance prescribed for the raw agricultural commodity. But when the concentration of residue in the processed food when ready to eat is higher than the tolerance prescribed for the raw agricultural commodity, the processed food is adulterated unless the higher concentration is permitted by a tolerance obtained under section 409 of the act. For example, if fruit bearing a residue of 7 parts per million of DDT permitted on the raw agricultural commodity is dried and a residue in excess of 7 parts per million of DDT results on the dried fruit, the dehydrated fruit is adulterated unless the higher tolerance for DDT is authorized by the regulations in this part. Food that is itself ready to eat, and which contains a higher residue than allowed for the raw agricultural commodity, may not be legalized by blending or mixing with other foods to reduce the residue in the mixed food below the tolerance prescribed for the raw agricultural commodity.
SERVED: MAY 21,2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

zrm 

AERO MICRONESIA, INC. dba ASIA PACIFIC AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-:2012-0468 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

22 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011 WP350018) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 1 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

-.Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 As of today, no documents have been posted to this case's docket in the Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS). Complainant's Counsel shall ensure that all documents filed and served to date have been provided to 

DOT Dockets for posting on FDMS. 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0002 

ONE COPY 

Michael R. Quinn, President 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

TEL: 925-362-4430 

FAX: 925-362-4432 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

PO Box92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX: ·310-725-6816 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 · 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. -(E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0468 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · 

-2-
# C_2014380EN.01002701.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/27

---

Action brought on 19 July 2014 — ZZ v European Securities and Markets Authority

(Case F-69/14)

2014/C 380/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the appraisal report drawn up in respect of 2013.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the challenged appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the challenged appraisal report;

| — | order the European Securities and Markets Authority to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Securities and Markets Authority to pay the costs.

---
§ 182.1516 Monopotassium glutamate. ( a ) *Product.* Monopotassium glutamate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Nicole A. White, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW., room 10002, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-6450.                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 245-7884, or by                         *e-mail: nicole.white@ed.gov.*

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

## VIII. Other Information

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII of this notice.                    

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register,**                         in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*                         To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.                    

# Note:

                             The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register.**                             Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://                            *www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: February 24, 2010.

Kevin Jennings,

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools

[FR Doc. 2010-4317 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1150

____________

GALANTE ROMAR PHILLIPS,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[July 19, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on appeal from an order granting in part and 

denying in part a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder 

and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.1 We 

hereby dismiss this appeal because the guilt phase issues were waived since they 

were not briefed by Phillips, and the penalty phase issues were mooted by the new 

penalty phase ordered by the trial court pursuant to Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 

(Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). Because there will be a new 

 

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
- 2 -

penalty phase, it is inconsequential whether Phillips’s trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to raise the issue of intellectual disability at the previous penalty phase. 

As the State argued, Phillips may raise the issue of intellectual disability at the trial 

court prior to his new penalty phase proceedings. See Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 

211, 212 (Fla. 1992) (“A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or 

when the issues have ceased to exist.” (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 

1990))).

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 

and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, 

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge - Case No. 162006CF015566AXXXMA

Frank Tassone of Tassone, Dreicer, & Hill, LLC, Jacksonville, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Donahue, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee