alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Kevin J. McAndrew, certify that:

     1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Canterbury
Consulting Group, Inc.;

     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.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

     b)    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-
47986]

     c)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our
conclusions 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 quarterly report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting; and

     5.    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

     a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or
operation of internal control over financial reporting 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
controls over financial reporting.

Date: April 13, 2004

                        /s/ Kevin J. McAndrew
                        -------------------------------------


                            Kevin J. McAndrew
                            President, Chief Executive Officer
                            and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellee, versus ALFREDO SIMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-67-3) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfredo Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alfredo Simpson appeals the district court’s orders denying his “Motion to Vacate Judgement[sic] Under Rule 12(b)(2)” and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simpson , No. CR-90-67-3 (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2001; Oct. 16, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 34.46 Professional association membership; competency. ( a ) *Membership in appraisal organizations.* A State certified appraiser or a State licensed appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction solely by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization.
( b ) *Competency.* All staff and fee appraisers performing appraisals in connection with federally related transactions must be State certified or licensed, as appropriate. However, a State certified or licensed appraiser may not be considered competent solely by virtue of being certified or licensed. Any determination of competency shall be based upon the individual's experience and educational background as they relate to the particular appraisal assignment for which he or she is being considered.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3150 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3150

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide funds for the 
   security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the 
  reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2003

  Mr. Lantos introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide funds for the 
   security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the 
  reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Iraq Security and Stabilization Fund 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ 
              THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST 
              INCOME TAX RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to tax imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(j) Provision of Funds for Security and Stabilization of Iraq 
Through Partial Suspension of Reductions in Highest Income Tax Rate.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
        beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010, the 35 
        percent rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) 
        shall be adjusted to the percentage determined by the Secretary 
        to result in an increase in revenues into the Treasury for all 
        taxable years beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 
        2010 equal to $87,000,000,000.
            ``(2) Adjustment of tables.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
        tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this 
        subsection.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
PRACTICE — ERROR.

[Lucas Circuit Court,

January Term, 1893.]

Bentley, Haynes and Scribner, JJ.

#### Sherman W. Lott, Admr., v. Toledo Cons. St. Ry. Co.

Failure to Have Summons in Error Issued.

A petition in error was filed in the circuit court August 26, 1893, but no praecipe for summons in error issued until February 8, 1894. *Held,*same was not within the time-required by law.

The verdict in this case was rendered on June 24, 1893, in the court of common pleas, and a motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered: on the verdict July 8, 1893. The bill of exceptions was signed on August 25, 1893, and filed on the next day. The petition in error was filed in the circuit court August 26, 1893, but no prsecipe for a summons in error issued until February 8, 1894; more than six months having thus elapsed between the rendition of the judgment and the issuing of the summons in error.

Counsel for the defendant in error now moves the court to set aside the issuing and service of the summons in error and to order the petition in error stricken from the files for want of authority of the clerk to issue such summons in. error and for want of jurisdiction of the circuit court to entertain, the petition in-error, and cited 16 O. S., 542, and 89 O. L., 45. The court granted the motion to set aside the issuing of service of summons in error and ordered the petition' in error stricken from the files as not filed within the time required by law.
§ 313.21 Definitions. ( a ) *Administrative offset* means withholding funds payable by the United States to, or held by the United States for, a person to satisfy a debt.
( b ) *Person* includes a natural person or persons, profit or nonprofit corporation, partnership, association, trust, estate, consortium, or other entity which is capable of owing a debt to the United States Government except that agencies of the United States, or any state or local government shall be excluded.
# C_2018130EN.01000301.xml

| 12.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 December 2017

in Case E-5/17

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan)

(Einkaleyfastofan)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Certificate of negative duration)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Certificate of negative duration)

(2018/C 130/03)

In Case E-5/17, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 21 December 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

(Einkaleyfastofan)

Hæstiréttur Íslands

Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 permits the issuing of a supplementary protection certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date on which the basic patent application was lodged and the date of the first marketing authorisation in the EEA is less than five years. This result is not affected by the fact that the Joint Committee Decision incorporating Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 into the EEA Agreement has not entered into force.

---
Jcl^ARTMENT OF 

iRAiJSPORTATION 

•OCKLlOPBRATiOMS 

Zni! DPC ? 3 A ^^ 52 

SERVED DECEMBER 22, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TTtANSPORTATlON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NATIONAL BARN COMPANY 

FAA DOCK£T NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-304^ - 0676 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") filed a 

Complaint dated July 6, 2011. National Bam Company, (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") 

filed a Request for Hearing dated June 28, 2011. 

The parties settled this case on July 20, 2011. 

Respondent filed a Request to withdraw Request for Hearing dated July 21, 201). 

The Agency filed a Withdrawal of Complaint dated July 22, 2011. 

14 CF.R. § 13.215 states; "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may 

withdra.w a complairyt or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent of 

the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party 

withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss 

the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

According to the Case Tracking System (CTS), this case was received in the Office of 

Hearings on July 18> 2011 and entered into CTS on July 18, 20U. 

The case was not assigned to the undersigned imtil the Notice of Assignment was served 

December 19» 2011. 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Request for Hearing and Request to 

Withdraw Complaint having been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Agency's Request to withdraw its Complaint; and 

2. Respondent's Request to Withdraw Request for Hearing, 
3, be and are hereby granted pursuant to settlement; and 

4. . ^ ;rliisk»TOceeding be and is hereby dismissed witli prejudice. 

Rj^nsrcTt:. uooyj^m 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge^ 

Attachment ~ Sei.-vice List 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-0676 

(Civil Penahy Action) 

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 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Brian Keane, President 

National Barn Company, Respondent 

1739 East Highway 62 

Fort Gibson, OK 74434 

TEL: 918-478-3538 

James Archier, Complamanl's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7G 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5945 or-5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Adm inisi rat ive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Ad visor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

' Sen'ice wasby U.S. MarJ. For semce in person or by c.\'pedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Adniiiiislration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Wasliington, 

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

- 2 -
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 20, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: September 24, 2014 Brief Remarks at a meeting of Oklahoma state agencies, 

industries, and NGOs Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

Brief remarks were made by EPA at a September 24 meeting of Oklahoma state agencies, 

industries, and NGOs on the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was 

proposed on June 2, 2014. The meeting was held in Oklahoma City, OK.

ATTENDEES

Participants: Mike Teague (Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and the Environment), Will 

McPherson (Oklahoma Governor's Office), Eddie Terrill, Rob Singletary, Cheryl Bradley, Beverly 

Botchlet-Smith, Scott Thomas, Scott Thompson (Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality), Nicole King, Brandy Wreath, and Geoffrey Rush (Oklahoma Corporation Commission), 

Michael Watt and Mike Mushrush (Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority), Greg Kushel 

(Tensaska), Brian McQuown, Usha Turner, Kimber Shoop (OGE), Mickie Taylor (American 

Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity), Jim Dunlap (Jim Dunlap Consultants), Jim Roth and Dominic 

Williams (Phillips Murrah), Brent Ross (Associated Electric Cooperatives Inc.), Ted Himes (Kamo 

Power), Al Armendariz and Whitney Pearson (Sierra Club), Chris Winland (ITC Great Plains), Dan 

Barron and Cason Carter (Alliance Resources), and Tom Schroedter (Oklahoma Industrial Energy 

Consumers)

EPA Participant: Ron Curry (Regional Administrator)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3051 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3051

 To pay a one-time bonus to members of the Armed Forces who served or 
   serve in a combat zone designated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or 
          Operation Enduring Freedom, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2003

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To pay a one-time bonus to members of the Armed Forces who served or 
   serve in a combat zone designated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or 
          Operation Enduring Freedom, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ONE-TIME BONUS FOR SERVICE IN COMBAT ZONE DESIGNATED FOR 
              OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM OR OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

    (a) Military Services.--The Secretary of Defense shall pay a one-
time bonus of $1,500 to each member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or 
Marine Corps, including reserve components thereof, who served or 
serves for any period of time in a combat zone designated in connection 
with Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
    (b) Coast Guard.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall pay a 
one-time bonus of $1,500 to each member of the Coast Guard or Coast 
Guard Reserve who served or serves for any period of time in a combat 
zone designated in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
Enduring Freedom.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 206.6 Waiver.

The Board may waive the application of § 206.4(a) of this part to a bank if the primary Federal supervisor of the bank advises the Board that the bank is not reasonably able to obtain necessary services, including payment-related services and placement of funds, without incurring exposure to a correspondent in excess of the otherwise applicable limit.
Exhibit No. 11 Statement re Computation of Earnings Per Share


                                             Year Ended
                                          December 31, 1998

Net income                                  $  8,150,044
                                              ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding            8,596,884
                                               =========

Basic earnings per share                    $       0.95
                                               =========

Weighted average shares outstanding            8,596,884

Additional diluted shares from assumed
  conversions of options and warrants            561,919
                                               ---------
Adjusted weighted average shares
  outstanding                                  9,158,803
                                               =========

Diluted earnings per share                  $       0.89
                                               =========
#### §§ 313.129-313.139 [Reserved]
§ 303.220 What is section 19 of the FDI Act? ( a ) This subpart covers applications under section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1829. Under section 19, any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program (program entry) in connection with a prosecution for such offense, may not become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party (IAP) of an insured depository institution (IDI); own or control, directly or indirectly, any IDI; or otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any IDI without the prior written consent of the FDIC.
( b ) In addition, the law bars an IDI from permitting such a person to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited by section 19. IDIs should therefore make a reasonable inquiry regarding an applicant's history to ensure that a person who has a conviction or program entry covered by the provisions of section 19 is not hired or permitted to participate in its affairs without the written consent of the FDIC issued under this subpart. FDIC-supervised IDIs may extend a conditional offer of employment contingent on the completion of a background check satisfactory to the institution and to determine if the applicant is barred under section 19, but the job applicant may not work for, be employed by, or otherwise participate in the affairs of the IDI until the IDI has determined that the applicant is not barred under section 19.
( c ) If there is a conviction or program entry covered by the bar of section 19, an application under this subpart must be filed seeking the FDIC's consent to become, or to continue as, an IAP; to own or control, directly or indirectly, an IDI; or to otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of the IDI. The application must be filed, and consented to, prior to serving in any of the foregoing capacities unless such application is not required under the subsequent provisions of this subpart. The purpose of an application is to provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the bar, a person is fit to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an IDI without posing a risk to its safety and soundness or impairing public confidence in that institution. The burden is upon the applicant to establish that the application warrants approval.