alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Alton L. Boynton, certify that:(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.;(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and(5) I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 10, 2006     By: /s/ Alton L. Boynton Alton L. Boynton    President (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Smith *vs.*Martin.

A party against whom an execution has been issued, and whose property has been advertised for sale, is not liable to pay the expense of the continuation of the advertisement after an order to stay proceedings made to enable him to move for a new trial; it is otherwise when the order is to stay until the determination of a special motion.

Motion for re-taxation of costs. A new trial was granted on payment of costs. In the bill of costs were taxed the sheriff’s fees for *continuing*the advertisement of the sale of the defendant’s property under the execution issued in the cause, subsequent to an order to stay proceedings on the execution until the decision of the court on a case made for a new trial.

*By the*Court,

Nelson, J.

[591] Where proceedings are stayed upon an execution until the decision of a non-enumerated motion, and the motion is denied, and the advertisement has been continued in the mean time, the party against whom the process issued is liable to pay the expense of the advertisement; but he is not so liable where the proceedings are stayed for the purpose of enabling the party to move for a new trial on a case made. Let there be a relaxation of the costs.
§ 36.501 Noise limits. ( a ) Compliance with this subpart must be shown for— ( 1 ) Propeller driven small airplanes for which application for the issuance of a new, amended, or supplemental type certificate in the normal, utility, acrobatic, transport, or restricted category is made on or after October 10, 1973; and propeller-driven, commuter category airplanes for which application for the issuance of a type certificate in the commuter category is made on or after January 15, 1987.
( 2 ) Propeller driven small airplanes and propeller-driven, commuter category airplanes for which application is made for the original issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate or restricted category airworthiness certificate, and that have not had any flight time before January 1, 1980 (regardless of date of application).
( 3 ) Airplanes in the primary category: ( i ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, for an airplane for which application for a type certificate in the primary category is made, and that was not previously certificated under appendix F of this part, compliance with appendix G of this part must be shown.
( ii ) For an airplane in the normal, utility or acrobatic category that ( A ) has a type certificate issued under this chapter,
( B ) has a standard airworthiness certificate issued under this chapter,
( C ) has not undergone an acoustical change from its type design,
( D ) has not previously been certificated under appendix F or G of this part, and
( E ) for which application for conversion to the primary category is made, no further showing of compliance with this part is required.
( b ) For aircraft covered by this subpart for which certification tests are completed before December 22, 1988, compliance must be shown with noise levels as measured and prescribed in Parts B and C of appendix F, or under approved equivalent procedures. It must be shown that the noise level of the airplane is no greater than the applicable limit set in Part D of appendix F.
( c ) For aircraft covered by this subpart for which certification tests are not completed before December 22, 1988, compliance must be shown with noise levels as measured and prescribed in Parts B and C of appendix G, or under approved equivalent procedures. It must be shown that the noise level of the airplane is no greater than the applicable limits set in Part D of appendix G.
[Doc. No. 13243, 40 FR 1034, Jan. 6, 1975, as amended by Amdt. 36-13, 52 FR 1836, Jan. 15, 1987; Amdt. 36-16, 53 FR 47400, Nov. 22, 1988; Amdt. 36-19, 57 FR 41369, Sept. 9, 1992]
#### § 296.6 Public disclosure of cargo liability limits and insurance.

Every indirect cargo air carrier shall give notice in writing to the shipper, when any shipment is accepted, of the existence or absence of cargo liability accident insurance, and of the limits on the extent of its liability, if any. The notice shall be clear and conspicuously included on or attached to all of its rate sheets and airwaybills.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

US Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Jefferson County, CO

Peon

of
watt

. tioned Wine
Technalagy Center

&
Sa

&

ma )
8: f%
® t g

ram

im ea)

j Cae —
Cultural Resources —<—<—_ A
[1 Chipped stone I] Stone Enclosure Decomber 2003, N
[} Ground stone [Stone Feature
@ Orchard HE =Cotheer sit
HD Projectile Point =: 1882 Railroad Grade
DD Stone cairn (G _DOE Retained Area (Subject to Change)

Figure no. 18

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and EIS 115
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., 

Debtors.

1

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

Re: ECF Nos. 3963

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING URGENT CONSENTED MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION 

OF DEADLINES

Upon the Urgent Consented Motion for Extension of Deadlines (the “Extension Motion”);

2

and the Court having found it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 

PROMESA section 306; and it appearing that venue in this district is proper pursuant to 

PROMESA section 307; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Extension 

Motion is in the best interests of the Debtor and Movant; and the Court having found that the 

Debtor provided adequate and appropriate notice of the Extension Motion under the circumstances 

and that no other or further notice is required; and the Court having reviewed the Extension 

Motion; and the Court having determined that the factual bases set forth in the Extension Motion 

 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number and the last four 

(4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales 

Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal 

Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal 

Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations).

2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Extension Motion. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4024-1 Filed:10/07/18 Entered:10/07/18 14:50:27 Desc:

Exhibit A-Proposed Order Page 1 of 2
establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause 

appearing therefor, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Extension Motion is granted as set forth herein.

2. The deadline to file oppositions to the Motion [ECF No. 3958], or to otherwise respond,

shall be extended to October 22, 2018.

3. The deadline for Movant to file a reply to any oppositions shall be extended to October 

29, 2018. 

Dated: ___________, 2018

___________________________________

HONORABLE LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4024-1 Filed:10/07/18 Entered:10/07/18 14:50:27 Desc:

Exhibit A-Proposed Order Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 11.1

                                24/7 MEDIA, INC.

                        Calculation of net loss per share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             For the Years Ended December 31,
                                       -------------------------------------------
                                           1999            1998           1997
                                       ------------    ------------    -----------
<S>                                    <C>             <C>             <C>
Net loss ...........................   $(39,062,000)   $(25,157,000)   $(6,313,000)

Cumulative dividends on mandatorily
 convertible preferred stock .......             --        (276,000)            --
                                       ------------    ------------    -----------

Net loss attributable to common
 stockholders ......................   $(39,062,000)   $(25,433,000)   $(6,313,000)
                                       ============    ============    ===========

Total weighted average common shares
 outstanding .......................     19,972,446      10,248,677      1,802,235
                                       ============    ============    ===========
Basic and diluted net loss
  per common share .................   $      (1.96)   $      (2.48)   $     (3.50)
</TABLE>
§ 29.1329 Automatic pilot and flight guidance system. For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic pilot and flight guidance system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim. ( a ) Each automatic pilot and flight guidance system must be designed so that it: ( 1 ) Can be overpowered by one pilot to allow control of the rotorcraft;
( 2 ) Provides a means to disengage the system, or any malfunctioning component of the system, by each pilot to prevent it from interfering with the control of the rotorcraft; and
( 3 ) Provides a means to indicate to the flight crew its current mode of operation. Selector switch position is not acceptable as a means of indication.
( b ) Unless there is automatic synchronization, each system must have a means to readily indicate to the pilot the alignment of the actuating device in relation to the control system it operates.
( c ) Each manually operated control for the system's operation must be readily accessible to the pilots.
( d ) The system must be designed so that, within the range of adjustment available to the pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on the rotorcraft, or create hazardous deviations in the flight path, under any flight condition appropriate to its use or in the event of a malfunction, assuming that corrective action begins within a reasonable period of time.
( e ) If the automatic pilot and flight guidance system integrates signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
( f ) If the automatic pilot system can be coupled to airborne navigation equipment, means must be provided to indicate to the pilots the current mode of operation. Selector switch position is not acceptable as a means of indication.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 44439, Nov. 6, 1984; Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 47594, Dec. 6, 1984; Amdt. 29-42, 63 FR 43285, Aug. 12, 1998; Amdt. 29-59, 88 FR 8739, Feb. 10, 2023]
Exhibit 21.1

                            List of Subsidiaries of
                       Graham Packaging Holdings Company





Name:                                Jurisdiction and Type of Formation
------------------------------       ----------------------------------
Graham Packaging Company             Delaware limited partnership

GPC Capital Corp. I                  Delaware corporation

GPC Capital Corp. II                 Delaware corporation

GPC OPCO GP LLC                      Delaware limited liability company

GPC Sub GP LC                        Delaware limited liability company

Graham Packaging Canada Limited      Ontario corporation

Graham Packaging France Partners     Pennsylvania general partnership

Graham Packaging France Holdings     French S.A.
S.A.

Graham Packaging France, S.A.        French S.A.

Graham Packaging Italy, S.r.L.       Italian S.r.L.
S.I.P. Srl                           Italian S.r.L.

LIDO Plast-Graham SRL                Argentine S.r.L.

Graham Packaging Poland, L.P.        Pennsylvania limited partnership

Masko Graham Spolka Z.O.O.           Polish Ltda.

Graham Recycling Company             Pennsylvania limited partnership
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

Name:                                Jurisdiction and Type of Formation
------------------------------       ----------------------------------

Graham Packaging Latin America,      Delaware limited liability company
LLC

Graham Brasil Participacoes Ltda.    Brazilian Ltda.

Graham Packaging do Brasil           Brazilian S.A.
Industria e Comercio S.A.

Graham Packaging U.K. Ltd.           England corporation

Graham Packaging Deutschland Gmbh    German LLC

Graham Plastpak Plastic Ambalaj      Turkish LLC
A.S.
Graham Packaging Europe S.A.S.       French Societe

Graham Emballlages Plastiques S.A.   French corporation

Resin Rio Comercio Ltda.             Brazil LLC



Note:  Certain foreign subsidiaries' statutory shares are not included in the
       table above.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony P. Deasey, certify that:(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2007          By: /s/ Anthony P. Deasey         Anthony P. Deasey    Chief Financial Officer
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 12, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01461-CR HENRY CHAVEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-00225-H 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Jus tice Myers, and Justice Stoddar t Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Henry Chavez appeals his convic tion for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. After appellant pleaded guilty under a plea bargain agreement with th e State, the trial court found him guilty and assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conv iction, at ten years in prison. Appellant then filed this appeal. A defendant perfects his appeal by timely filing a written noti ce of appeal with the trial court clerk. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(c). To be timely, the notice of appeal must be filed w ithin thirty days after the date sentence was imposed or within ninet y days after sentencing if the defendant timely filed a motion for new trial. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a). In the absence of a timely perfected notice of appeal , the Court must dismiss the a ppeal. Ex parte Castillo , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).–2– In this case, the trial court entered judgment on July 9, 2018. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, appellant’s notice of appeal was d ue on August 8, 2018. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until D ecember 5, 2018. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(c)(1). Under these circumst ances, we conclude appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely and we must dismiss the appeal. 1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 181461F.U05

1 We also note that under the plea bargain agreement, appellant w aived his right to appeal, and the trial court certified that a ppellant waived his right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2; Dears v. State , 154 S.W. 3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding when rig ht to appeal is waived in plea bargain between defendant and State, and tria l court certifies defendant wai ved right, court of appeals lack s jurisdiction and must dismiss appeal).. /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
HENRY CHAVEZ, Appellant
No. 05-18-01461-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-00225-H. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Myers and Stodd art participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered December 12, 2018.
[Crim. No. 482.

In Bank.

December 13, 1898.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. W. H. ELKINS, Appellant.

Criminal Law—Homicide—Escape op Convict—Appeal—Conditional Dismissal.—The appeal of a defendant convicted of murder, who has escaped from custody, and is at large, will be ordered to stand dismissed, unless the defendant shall within a time specified return to the custody of the sheriff.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County and from an order denying a new trial. J. K. Law, Judge.

The facts» are stated 'in the opinion of the court.

James F. Peck, Frank H. Farrar, and B. F. Fowler, for Appellant.

*655W. F. Fitzgerald, Attorney-General, and C. N. Post, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

GAROUTTE, J.

The defendant, Elkins, was convicted of murder of the second degree, and has appealed from the judgment of conviction, and also from the order denying his motion for a new trial. This appeal is now pending before one of the departments of this court. .

The attorney general, by motion asks the court to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the defendant has escaped from custody and is now at large. He supports his application by an affidavit of the sheriff in whose custody the defendant was held to that effect. The interesting question as to the power of the appellate court under the facts here presented, and the proper procedure to be followed in such a case, has been carefully considered upon an identical state of facts arising in the case of *People v. Redinger,*55 Cal. 290; 36 Am. Rep. 32. Upon the authority of that case it is ordered that the appeal in this case stand dismissed unless the defendant shall, within thirty days from this date, return to the custody of the sheriff of the county of Merced, state of California. It is further ordered that a copy of the within order be served upon the attorneys of defendant within five days hereof.

Harrison, J., Van Fleet, J., McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.