alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Torvec, Inc.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;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;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 our supervision, 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 controls
over financial reporting, or
caused such internal controls
over financial reporting to be
designed 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 our
conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by
this report based upon such
evaluation; andd)
    
    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 (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) 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 our 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;
andb)
    
    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: March 30, 2010
    /s/ Keith E. GleasmanKeith E. GleasmanPresident and
Interim Chief Financial Officer
§ 1903.7 Conduct of inspections. ( a ) Subject to the provisions of § 1903.3, inspections shall take place at such times and in such places of employment as the Area Director or the Compliance Safety and Health Officer may direct. At the beginning of an inspection, Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall present their credentials to the owner, operator, or agent in charge at the establishment; explain the nature and purpose of the inspection; and indicate generally the scope of the inspection and the records specified in § 1903.3 which they wish to review. However, such designation of records shall not preclude access to additional records specified in § 1903.3.
( b ) Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall have authority to take environmental samples and to take or obtain photographs related to the purpose of the inspection, employ other reasonable investigative techniques, and question privately any employer, owner, operator, agent or employee of an establishment. (See § 1903.9 on trade secrets.) As used herein, the term *employ other reasonable investigative techniques* includes, but is not limited to, the use of devices to measure employee exposures and the attachment of personal sampling equipment such as dosimeters, pumps, badges and other similar devices to employees in order to monitor their exposures.
( c ) In taking photographs and samples, Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall take reasonable precautions to insure that such actions with flash, spark-producing, or other equipment would not be hazardous. Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall comply with all employer safety and health rules and practices at the establishment being inspected, and they shall wear and use appropriate protective clothing and equipment.
( d ) The conduct of inspections shall be such as to preclude unreasonable disruption of the operations of the employer's establishment.
( e ) At the conclusion of an inspection, the Compliance Safety and Health Officer shall confer with the employer or his representative and informally advise him of any apparent safety or health violations disclosed by the inspection. During such conference, the employer shall be afforded an opportunity to bring to the attention of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer any pertinent information regarding conditions in the workplace.
( f ) Inspections shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of this part.
[36 FR 17850, Sept. 14, 1971, as amended at 47 FR 6533, Feb. 12, 1982; 47 FR 55481, Dec. 10, 1982]
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6435

THOMAS WAYNE HANSFORD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. AMANDA COBB, Superintendent of the Dan River Prison Work Farm , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv - 00242

- FDW )

Submitted : July 17, 2019 Decided: August 2, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Thomas Wayne Hansford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Wayne Hansford seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by de monstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S.
at 484

- 85. We hav e independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hansford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adeq uately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Greens Worldwide Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Connie S. Ross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.









/s/ Connie S. Ross



Connie S. Ross

Chief Executive Officer

August 11, 2004









---

Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Greens Worldwide Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Margaret M. Eardley, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.









/s/ Margaret M. Eardley



Margaret M. Eardley

Acting Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2004
§ 1620.15 Jobs requiring equal skill in performance. ( a ) *In general.* The jobs to which the equal pay standard is applicable are jobs requiring equal skill in their performance. Where the amount or degree of skill required to perform one job is substantially greater than that required to perform another job, the equal pay standard cannot apply even though the jobs may be equal in all other respects. Skill includes consideration of such factors as experience, training, education, and ability. *It must be measured in terms of the performance requirements of the job.* If an employee must have essentially the same skill in order to perform either of two jobs, the jobs will qualify under the EPA as jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, even though the employee in one of the jobs may not exercise the required skill as frequently or during as much of his or her working time as the employee in the other job. *Possession of a skill not needed to meet the requirements of the job cannot be considered in making a determination regarding equality of skill.* The efficiency of the employee's performance in the job is not in itself an appropriate factor to consider in evaluating skill.
( b ) *Comparing skill requirements of jobs.* As a simple illustration of the principle of equal skill, suppose that a man and a woman have jobs classified as administrative assistants. Both jobs require them to spend two-thirds of their working time facilitating and supervising support-staff duties, and the remaining one-third of their time in diversified tasks, not necessarily the same. Since there is no difference in the skills required for the vast majority of their work, whether or not these jobs require equal skill in performance will depend upon the nature of the work performed during the latter period to meet the requirements of the jobs.
JANICE IC BREWER--GENE PALMA GOVERNOR

INTERIM DIRECTOR ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 4425 West Olive Avenue, Suite 134 Glendale, AZ 85302 602-771-4920 FAX 602-255-1950 800-277-6675 www.azdwm.gov July 21, 2009 To: All Weights and Measures Stakeholders Re: Stage
II Enforcement Discretion for E85 Dispensers: The Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality, (“ADEQ”), and the Arizona Department
of Weights and Measures, (“ADWM”) will be asking the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) totake action onarevision tothe State Implementation Plan, (“SIP”) relating to Stage
II Vapor Recovery
in Area A. This revision also includes

a change in the definition of gasoline that would exclude E85, (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).

If EPA acts uponthis request,retailers would no longer be required toinstall Stage
II vapor recoverycontrols onE85 dispensers. This enforcement discretion letter will take effect asof the date of this letter.
Itwill remain in effect until EPA takes action onthe SIP revision for E85 dispensing facilities
in areaA, (the vaporcontrol area). This enforcement discretion

is limited to Stage
Il requirements affecting E85 dispensers

in area A. Additionally, please be advised that anydiscretion exercised

isnot necessarily representative

of anyaction the EPA mayinitiate.

If youhave questions related tothis enforcement discretion please contactDuane Yantomo at (602) 771-4933. Sincerely Gene alma Interim Director Arizona Department
of Weights and Measures Cc: D. Ehrhart D. Yantomo
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                         -------------------------------


November 7, 2006

Board of Directors
Gateway Distributors, Ltd.
North Las Vegas, Nevada

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB/A No. 3
filed on or about November 8, 2006 of the report dated October 24, 2006,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Gateway Distributors, Ltd.
for the year ended December 31, 2004, and to our inclusion as a named expert.
Our report included an explanatory paragraph regarding Gateway's ability to
continue as a going concern.

/s/ Madsen & Associates CPAs, Inc.

Madsen & Associates CPAs, Inc.
Murray, Utah
§ 1404.12 Selection by parties and appointment of arbitrators. ( a ) After receiving a panel of names, the parties must notify OA of their selection of an arbitrator or of the decision not to proceed with arbitration. Upon notification of the selection of an arbitrator, OA will make a formal appointment of the arbitrator. The arbitrator, upon notification of appointment, shall communicate with the parties within 14 days to arrange for preliminary matters, such as the date and place of hearing. Should an arbitrator be notified directly by the parties that he or she has been selected, the arbitrator must promptly notify OA of the selection. The arbitrator must provide OA with the FMCS case number and other pertinent information for OA to make an appointment. A pattern of failure by an arbitrator to notify FMCS of a selection in an FMCS case may result in suspension or removal from the Roster. If the parties settle a case prior to the hearing, the parties must inform the arbitrator as well as OA. Consistent failure to follow these procedures may lead to a denial of future OA services.
( b ) Where the parties' collective bargaining agreement permits each party to separately notify OA of its ranked order of preference, or is silent on the manner of selecting arbitrators, FMCS will ask each party to advise OA of its order of preference by numbering each name on the panel and submitting the numbered list in writing to OA. Upon receiving the rank order from one party, OA will notify the other party that it has fourteen (14) days in which to submit its selections. Where both parties respond, the name that has the lowest combined number will be appointed. If the other party fails to respond, the first party's choice will be honored.
( c ) OA will make a direct appointment of an arbitrator only upon joint request or as otherwise provided by this part.
## &du/ E 4 0-/a 7 o6, 0 z jea,ktijg Pia, )

, t 4 1 4 ki/A t il Ja-un
,

1,4601 E PA- -0- - :2613 - 

# 0 634

- ik C' s,61-1-u1/4/e My name is Laura Montgomery. I live at 6385 E. Deerhollow Way in Norcross, GA. I am here to speak up for stronger EPA rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants and fight climate change.

Power plants are the largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S. today and these standards are critically important in protecting public health and in reducing the effects of global warming. The new EPA rules will contribute to a much-needed transition to a cleaner electricity system.

I know what it feels like not to be able to breathe. I have asthma. In the summer months the air quality is the worst. In June and July breathing is the most difficult. Every time the air quality alerts go into orange or red I get very congested and have an asthmatic cough. I get a headache.

The unhealthiest days for asthma and other lung diseases are recorded by EPA by county for Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb and deKalb. I don't even need to see the recorded air quality. I can tell by how I feel.

Particulate matter or particle pollution, especially fine particles, can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Ground-level ozone is also a serious health pollutant. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion; It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. Ozone is experienced as a burning of sensitive tissues. Even relatively low levels of ozone can cause health effects. People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors may be particularly sensitive to ozone.

I urge you to work quickly to strengthen and finalize strong standards for existing power plants and finalize standards for both new and existing power plants by June 2015.
r e u U l cui u e z i . ' , cz t n r

LM&tKJt l l-M « P- 2 02/01/1 0 02:35F1 1 XARLU K HEALT H CL I 907241221 3 p.0 1 O2-OI-201 O D3:46p« . Frw-FILBIE S COP V CENTE R435?eriJ5 1 T-I8 T P.001/00 2 F-4 « 

# Tv-V^ l c^-^c: \^*v^----- t 'p^.^^ f

o^r

Chie t Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Divisio n Offic e o f Aviatioi i Analysi s :: ' U.S . Depntoien t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D.C . 20S9 0 1-202-366-104 7 Phon e ' 1-202-366-763 8 fa

x z i 

### KgmA^Hng<^.rfgT.»t<;> v Kevi n Adam s Tb e Kariulc Tzibal Counci l woul dlik e to endois e Islan dAir s Qptit mNumbe r tw o for tli e Essentia i Servto c contrac t no w unde r

consideration . Islan dAi r i s cunreatl y servin g Kadu k an dperfbm s amuc hneede dsovic e t o ou r conunimity . The y ar e ou r carrie r o f choice . W e hav e bee n iinpacte dwitf aadowotut n i n ou r

touris meconom y atv

dclosur e o f

ou r rive r ^ste mdo e t o poo r

tetum s o f

Kin ^ Saimctn . Optio n Tw o wil l provid e som e relie f witha reduce dsea t

&re . Thi s optio n wil l hel p ai l traveler s withth e hi£ ^ cos t o f travel .

Karttt k Triba l Counci l Alici aAndrew s 1-907-241-221 S phon e 1-907-241-220 8 foe
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jennifer McGough Russell, as * From the 39th District Court

Trustee of the Jennifer McGough of Stonewall County,

Russell Trust and as Co-Trustee Trial Court No. 4676

of the Bobby Frank McGough Trust,

Vs. No. 11-19-00270-CV * August 12, 2021

John Michael McGough, as * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J. 

Trustee of the John Michael McGough (Panel consists of: Trotter, J.,

Trust and as Co-Trustee of the Williams, J., and Wright, S.C.J.

Bobby Frank McGough Trust, sitting by assignment)

(Bailey, C.J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of 

this appeal are taxed against Jennifer McGough Russell, as Trustee of the Jennifer 

McGough Russell Trust and as Co-Trustee of the Bobby Frank McGough Trust.
#### Jimmy CARTER *v.*HELENA MARINE SERVICE, INC.

5-5721

475 S.W. 2d 528

Opinion delivered January 31, 1972

*Schieffler & Murray,*for appellant.

*David Solomon,*for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant Jimmy Carter sued out a writ of garnishment directed to appellee, Helena Marine Service, Inc., in an effort to attach any wages in the hands of the garnishee owing one Joe Self. Although the court found that Helena Marine did not timely answer, judgment was denied on the theory that Joe Self worked as a seaman and that his wages were exempt by federal statute. The issues on appeal are whether appellant Carter was entitled to judgment on the garnishment and, if so, the amount of the judgment.

In August 1969 appellant Carter obtained judgment against Joe Self for $6,300.14. On October 18, 1969, Carter obtained a writ of garnishment directed to Helena Marine Service, alleging Helena Marine to be indebted to Self in the sum of $250. The interrogatories were served three days later. Helena Marine did not report the matter to its attorney until November 12, 1969, on which date an answer was filed, denying any indebtedness *877to the judgment debtor, Self. The facts we have recited are not disputed. Nor is there any question but that Helena Marine was not indebted to Self, he having quit his employment in September 1969 and having collected all his wages.

We conclude that even if appellant was entitled to judgment against appellee because of the failure to timely file an answer to the allegations and interrogatories, under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 31-512 (Repl. 1962), the recovery should be limited to $250. That is the amount of Self’s money which appellant by his pleadings alleged was in the hands of the garnishee. *Wilson*v. *Phillips,*5 Ark. 183 (1843); *Lewis*v. *Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,*241 Ark. 360, 407 S. W. 2d 750 (1966). We should also note that the trial court, in the instant case, said that if that court were to enter judgment it would be for $250.

We do not agree with the trial court that the appellee garnishee is protected from payment by virtue of 46 U. S. C. A. § 601. That section excludes the wages of a seaman or apprentice from attachment or arrestment from any court, except for support and maintenance of a wife and minor children. The only evidence in the record about the status of Joe Self’s position with garnishee was that he was a “seaman pilot or seaman operator.” There are a number of workers in navigable waters who do not come under the term “seaman.” For example, the master of a vessel is not a “seaman” within the terms of the statute. *Blackton*v. *Gordon,*303 U. S. 91 (1938). Again, it has been held that the wages of a pilot are subject to garnishment. *William Jackman Sons*v. *Hauffman,*287 N. Y. S. 177 (1935). From the evidence adduced we are unable to say that Joe Self’s endeavours as a seaman pilot or seaman operator protected his wages from garnishment. The burden was on appellee to establish the exemption. *Blythe*v. *Jett,*52 Ark. 547, 13 S. W. 137 (1889).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.